ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Violence against Women

Claire Perry: What steps she is taking to tackle violence against women.

Theresa May: A comprehensive cross-Government action plan on tackling violence against women and girls was published on 8 March this year. It includes 88 commitments from 12 Departments to improve the provision of services for victims of violence and to prevent violence from happening in the first place. We have already delivered 22 of those commitments.

Claire Perry: I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. Also part of this Government’s work is a pilot scheme running in Swindon and Wiltshire in which perpetrators of domestic violence are effectively banned from the family home, rather than the family and the women being forced to move out, as happened previously. My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that, since July, under the terms of the scheme, 82 abusive perpetrators have been removed from family homes. The head of Wiltshire victim support unit said that the programme is reaching women who have never been helped before. Will my right hon. Friend please tell us when the pilot might be rolled out nationally?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is absolutely right that domestic violence protection orders do what hon. Members across the House have always felt is right: ensure that when a domestic violence incident takes place it is the perpetrator who is not able to stay in the home, rather than the victim being forced out, as has happened so often in the past. We commenced a pilot in Greater Manchester, West Mercia and Wiltshire, and a second wave of pilot areas started in October in Grater Manchester and West Mercia, which we are looking to run for at least a year before we assess them properly.

Stella Creasy: The Opposition welcome press reports this weekend that the Deputy Prime Minister wants to widen the definition of
	domestic violence. Let me also offer Home Office Ministers our support if they wish to challenge the actions of their colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, who are seeking to restrict access to legal aid for victims of domestic violence. Does the Home Secretary agree that that should happen, so that we send a strong message to victims that they should not have to wait until the first punch is thrown before they get help?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady is right that we need to ensure that we have the right definition of domestic violence. That is why the Government are consulting on the appropriate definition and ensuring that we have a cross-Government definition, which, sadly, the previous Labour Government did not have.

Bob Russell: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer to the excellent opening question and urge her to look at the Home Affairs Committee report on domestic violence from the previous Parliament. If she implements its recommendations, a lot of the issues will be resolved.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his reference to the work previously done by the Home Affairs Committee on this important issue. The Government are looking across the board at sources of proposals for dealing with this problem. As I have said, our cross-Government action plan included 12 Departments and made a significant number of commitments to ensure that we do what all in the House would want: end violence against women and girls.

Target Sports Clubs

Chris Heaton-Harris: What her policy is on the designation of (a) target sports clubs where historical pistols are studied and shot and (b) other target sports clubs.

Nick Herbert: Clubs that wish to keep and use historical pistols and weapons must have Home Office authorisation. There are strict criteria governing the designation of sites under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, which are set out in the guidance issued by the Home Office.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Northampton target sports club is based in my constituency. A number of members wish to study and shoot historic pistols of some worth but are struggling with the licensing regime because they are within 30 miles of another licensed club. Will the Minister help us with that query and help to sort this out?

Nick Herbert: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. I am aware that the Northampton target sports club was refused designated-site status last month because there were other suitable sites within a reachable distance. I also understand that circumstances may have changed because another site is full. Therefore, a new application will be looked at properly.

Kate Hoey: Will the Minister give as much support as possible to the wonderful Olympic sport of pistol shooting, which suffers terribly from some of the rather knee-jerk legislation that went through
	this place some time ago? Will he ensure that pistol shooters are given every support possible to train in this country so that they do not have to go abroad to Switzerland to train for the Olympics?

Nick Herbert: I know of the hon. Lady’s long-standing concern. The Government seek to draw the distinction between the unlawful use of weapons, which we aim to deal with as robustly as possible, and the lawful possession of such weapons. We have the tightest set of firearms controls in the world, but sporting shooting, particularly in relation to the Olympics, is of course important.

UK Border Agency

Gavin Shuker: What recent assessment she has made of the operational effectiveness of the UK Border Agency.

Theresa May: I should like to pay tribute to the many dedicated and hard-working staff of UKBA, who do a good job, working day in, day out to keep our border secure and enforce immigration rules. There is certainly more to be done. The agency’s new chief executive, Rob Whiteman, has a vision to make further improvements. I share that vision.

Gavin Shuker: Has the Home Secretary yet received the interim internal report on this summer’s security lapse, and if so can she tell me how many people were wrongly allowed into Luton airport in my constituency?

Theresa May: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have made available some figures from the early assessment of the success rate of the pilot that was run in the summer. We are of course awaiting the independent investigation by the chief inspector of the UK Border Agency, which will not be available until the end of January.

Oliver Heald: There has been a warm welcome in the House and the country for the firmer approach being taken by this Government, but can the Home Secretary give us any further information on the ending of the bogus colleges scam, and to what extent the Government are able to influence events in the Mediterranean to ensure that better naval patrolling takes place to turn back boats carrying illegal immigrants?

Theresa May: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that there are now more than 450 colleges that have not been accredited under the scheme or did not apply to be accredited, which gives us a clear message about whether they were actually providing education. On his second point, it is important for this country to work with other countries and help them to improve their border security, so that the problem of people entering Europe and then the United Kingdom is reduced.

Jeremy Corbyn: I understand that some 98,000 cases have been put in what the Home Office calls the “controlled archive section”, and it claims that many of the people involved cannot be found or located. As a constituency MP, I have many such people coming to see me, and they are living here and going through an application or appeal, and simply
	waiting for a reply from the Home Office. Will the Home Secretary look again at the whole system and ensure that proper efforts are made to find people who are legitimately trying to continue their stay here?

Theresa May: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue and I remind him and other hon. Members that the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee asked Members of Parliament to write to the Home Office to say whether they had any cases of the sort that the hon. Gentleman mentions. The work that we have been doing is of course clearing up the chaotic mess in the asylum system that was left, sadly, by the last Government.

Don Foster: With tourism vital to places such as Bath, it is worrying that the more and more people who travel abroad from countries such as India and China tend not to come to this country because they think that the UKBA is unwelcoming. Should we not at least have a special visa for 2012 to commemorate the Olympics and the diamond jubilee, and have the application forms in the language of the tourist rather than in English?

Theresa May: I fully understand the benefits and importance of tourism to certain parts of the United Kingdom such as my right hon. Friend’s constituency. I assure him that special arrangements have been put in place by the UKBA for those who are travelling to be part of or to view the Olympics next summer.

Diana Johnson: Last month, the Home Office claimed that seizures of class A drugs by the UKBA were up. That was described by the chair of the UK Statistics Authority as
	“highly selective in its choice of statistics, in order, it seems, to show the UK Border Agency in a good light”.
	In reality, official statistics show that UKBA seizures of class A drugs fell last year. Overall, there were barely half the number of seizures than in 2008-09. Given that 452,000 people take ecstasy in the UK each year, does the Home Secretary think that seizing only 300 ecstasy tablets is good enough?

Theresa May: Seizures have gone up in the past six months. If the hon. Lady is as concerned about drugs as she appears to be from her question, I look forward to the Opposition welcoming the drugs strategy that the Government have introduced.

Domestic Violence against Men

Karl McCartney: What steps she is taking to tackle domestic violence against men.

Lynne Featherstone: The Government recognise that men can be victims of domestic violence, and take this issue very seriously. Later this week, we will launch a fund of £225,000 over two years to support services focusing explicitly on male victims of sexual and domestic violence. That is in addition to the Home Office funding provided each year to the men’s advice line, which provides support and signposting services for male victims, and to Broken Rainbow, which provides support to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender victims.

Karl McCartney: I welcome the announcement of the new fund by the Minister, as it will bring much-needed support for the victims of this deplorable crime. Will my hon. Friend also confirm that all domestic violence awareness campaigns run by this Government will be clearly aimed at supporting both female and male victims of domestic violence?

Lynne Featherstone: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is indeed the case. The recent teenage abuse campaign was aimed at both young men and women, because both can be subject to abuse from their contemporaries.

Police and Crime Commissioners

Michael Ellis: What recent progress she has made on the introduction of police and crime commissioners.

Theresa May: The first PCC elections will take place on 15 November 2012. I recently tabled a protocol setting out how the new policing governance arrangements will work and issued the shadow strategic policing requirement, which sets out the national threats that the police must address. Subject to parliamentary approval, London will move to the new PCC model in January.

Michael Ellis: I congratulate the Home Secretary on her achievement in this flagship legislation and on the fact that in a year’s time PCCs will be rolled out across the country. What steps can the Government take to ensure that prospective candidates for this important position will come from a wide diversity of backgrounds?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I add to his congratulations the name of my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister, who played a significant role in ensuring that the legislation was steered through Parliament for it to be in place in September. I am keen to ensure that we have a diversity of candidates. We are now looking into a number of ways in which we can promote an understanding of the role of the police and crime commissioners. My right hon. Friend marked the one year to go to PCCs on 21 November with a speech on a new era in policing. We will be publishing a consultation, setting out proposals that PCCs act as commissioners for victim support services.

Tony Lloyd: Given that the Home Secretary has made it clear that she wants police commissioners to have authority with respect not just to policing but to the criminal justice system, will she heed the important advice of the Association of Chief Police Officers that antisocial behaviour orders should still be part of the things at the disposal of police commissioners, the police and the criminal justice system?

Theresa May: I note the rather clever way in which the hon. Gentleman weaved the antisocial behaviour order into that question. As he knows, we consulted on replacing the current regime of ASBOs with a new regime that is clearer, less bureaucratic and easier to use. We will be introducing legislation in due course.

Tom Brake: One of the key features of the checks and balances that will operate on the police and crime commissioners are the police and crime panels. Will the Home Secretary confirm that the effectiveness of the police and crime panels will not be hindered by arbitrary restrictions such as a lack of access to senior police officers or experts or a budget that is so tight that it will restrict the PCPs’ ability to meet on a regular basis to scrutinise the police and crime commissioners?

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I recognise the interest that he has consistently shown in ensuring that the police and crime panels have the powers necessary to scrutinise the work of the police and crime commissioners. They will be different from police authorities, so their role will not be the same. We have set out clearly the interaction that they should have with the police and crime commissioner and with the chief constable of the police force area. As for budgets, our overall aim is that the new regime will cost no more than police authorities do today.

Police Efficiency

Simon Hart: What steps she is taking to improve efficiency within police forces.

Nick Herbert: We are supporting police forces in their drive to improve efficiency, including through reducing bureaucracy, more effective procurement, collaboration and sharing services.

Simon Hart: Is the Minister satisfied that local forces are doing enough to share the costs of facilities such as human resources and IT with other public bodies and other emergency services?

Nick Herbert: It is important that police forces do more to take up such opportunities. We have already seen an increase in the collaboration between police forces over operational matters, but there are valuable opportunities to collaborate and share services for the back-office functions such IT and human resources, which would result in significant savings. That is what we are encouraging forces to look at.

Andrew Miller: I welcome the idea of police forces sharing services, especially in areas such as forensic science. Given the Government’s strategy, is that not likely to result in the reforming of the Forensic Science Service?

Nick Herbert: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would reflect on the mismanagement under the previous Administration that left the Forensic Science Service on an unsustainable footing.

Julian Huppert: The innovative use of information technology can make a huge difference to police efficiency. Will the Minister have a look at companies, such as Sepura and RealVNC in my constituency, that are working already with police forces in the UK and the US to make it easier for the police to do their job?

Nick Herbert: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of good police IT, which we seek to improve. It is for forces to commission these services, but we have announced that we intend to set up a new vehicle—a force-owned IT body—to commission IT and seek improvements, because it is so important that police officers have good IT in order to fight crime effectively and not waste time on bureaucratic processes.

Gang-related Crime

Christopher Pincher: What steps she is taking to prevent vulnerable young people from being drawn into gang-related crime.

Theresa May: In November, I presented the “Ending Gang and Youth Violence” report to the House. Today, I have notified 22 areas that they will be offered targeted funding and support by the new ending gang and youth violence team, details of which I will place in the Library. I will shortly extend gang injunction powers to prevent gang violence by 14 to 17-year-olds and will launch a consultation on the penalties for illegal firearm supply and importation.

Christopher Pincher: I am obliged for that answer. Chief Inspector Ian Coxhead, Tamworth police and other agencies have launched Project Turnaround to identify potential problem youngsters early and to help them to keep on the rails, rather than going off them. Will my right hon. Friend commend that initiative, which has been rolled out across Staffordshire, and consider it as best practice for other chief constables?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing Project Turnaround to the notice of the House and I congratulate Chief Inspector Coxhead and all those who work with him on their work. It seems to be a good example of what we talked about in the “Ending Gang and Youth Violence” report—of police working with other agencies to find the best solutions for individuals and either prevent them from becoming gang members or turn them away from gangs.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Home Secretary agree that this is a key area for a joined-up approach across Government? By that I mean a Government who believe in keeping youth services active and working in our communities, and a Government who believe that 1 million unemployed people is unacceptable and will lead to trouble later.

Theresa May: The Government do indeed have a joined-up approach on that. The report was the result of work by an inter-ministerial group that I chaired, working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and with representations from several Departments, including the Department for Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government. I am pleased to say that the inter-ministerial group will continue to meet to monitor the work that the team are doing as a result of the report. Indeed, we held our first such meeting last week.

Gloria De Piero: Last week, the ringleaders of a gang of youths were given antisocial behaviour orders after making the lives of shoppers and
	businesses in Rochdale a misery. If they breach the ASBO, these youths will get a criminal record, but according to page 18 of the Government’s consultation document, “More Effective Responses to Antisocial Behaviour”, a breach of the Government’s proposed crime prevention injunction
	“would not result in a criminal record.”
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is the case?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady is well aware that we will be implementing several proposals to deal with antisocial behaviour and gangs, and I remind her that I have referred already this afternoon to what we are doing with gang injunctions. In the case to which she referred and similar cases, gang injunctions will be available.

London Bombings (Inquests)

Debbie Abrahams: What progress she has made on implementing the recommendations of the report of the coroner’s inquests into the London bombings of 7 July 2005; and if she will make a statement.

James Brokenshire: The Government responded to the coroner’s report, accepting the three recommendations directed to Government and taking action on other issues raised in her report. We are progressing work on those recommendations and areas of concern and will provide a full report on progress in March 2012.

Debbie Abrahams: I thank the Minister for his response. He will be aware that the Foulkes family, who are constituents of mine, lost their David in the Edgware road bombing. He unfortunately died. In addition to wanting the coroner’s recommendations implemented in full, they and other families are keen to see greater accountability of the security services to Parliament. Will the Minister commit to that today?

James Brokenshire: I certainly recognise the contribution that the families have made, and I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Lady’s constituent. The Government attach the utmost importance to the recommendations outlined in the coroner’s report and are fully committed to seeing through the implementation of actions to address them. She will be aware of the Green Paper on justice and security, which examines the role and powers of the Intelligence and Security Committee, including its ability to obtain wide-ranging information from intelligence agencies. The Government will report back to the House shortly on progress made and the consultation.

National Crime Agency

Stephen Mosley: What progress she has made on the establishment of the National Crime Agency.

Theresa May: We are on course to establish the National Crime Agency in 2013, subject to the passage of legislation. To drive early progress, work on the four operational commands is under way. The Organised Crime Co-ordination Centre, which is part of the intelligence
	hub, is now established, and the UK cyber-security strategy sets out the role of the cybercrime unit. Keith Bristow, the NCA director general, is in post and will drive progress further.

Stephen Mosley: One of the concerns raised when the Home Secretary announced the launch of the NCA in the summer was about the future of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. Is my right hon. Friend confident that CEOP’s role in protecting children will be enhanced and improved by its inclusion in the NCA?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an issue that was raised when the NCA was announced. I am pleased to say that CEOP is indeed one of the commands in the National Crime Agency. Peter Davies, the chief executive office of CEOP, has made it clear that
	“we know that we will go into that future”—
	that is, as part of the NCA—
	“with our brand, purpose and operating model intact.”
	Indeed, Peter Davies sits on the programme board and will work closely with Keith Bristow on the agency’s operating model. As part of the NCA, CEOP will not only be able to continue doing what it does today, but will be able to enhance its work, improving the vital work of protecting children.

Keith Vaz: The Home Secretary will recall that on 21 October she wrote to me saying that she would write to the Select Committee on Home Affairs shortly with the full details of which functions would be transferred from the National Policing Improvement Agency to the National Crime Agency. It is now six weeks since that letter, and in 12 weeks’ time the NPIA will be abolished. When will she be in a position to write to me with a full list of the functions that will be transferred, or will she accept the Committee’s recommendation that she should delay the NPIA’s closure until all the functions are properly transferred?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman may have misspoken in his question. He referred to the NPIA closing in 12 weeks. It will not be closing in 12 weeks: we have already made it clear that the NPIA will be closed by the end of December 2012, to allow time for the full and proper transfer of its functions, where necessary, to other organisations. We will inform Parliament of the transfer of those functions shortly.

Metal Theft

Adam Holloway: What steps she is taking to tackle metal theft.

Craig Whittaker: What steps she is taking to tackle metal theft.

Nadine Dorries: What steps she is taking to tackle metal theft.

James Brokenshire: The Government recognise the growing problem of metal theft and are taking urgent steps to address it. The Home Office is discussing with other Departments what legislative changes
	are necessary to assist enforcement agencies and deter offenders, including introducing a new licence regime for scrap metal dealers and prohibiting cash payments. We are also working with the Association of Chief Police Officers to establish a dedicated metal theft taskforce.

Adam Holloway: Metal theft costs us a huge amount of money in this country, as the Minister knows, whether it is of dodgy copper wire or lead from churches such as those in Ifield in my constituency. Is there any argument for seizing the entire inventories of metal dealers found to be purchasing what are effectively stolen goods?

James Brokenshire: I certainly recognise the impact that metal theft has on our communities, with the estimated cost ranging anywhere between £220 million and £777 million per annum. We underline and recognise the seriousness attached to metal theft, which is why we are seeking to establish a new taskforce better to inform intelligence and ensure that those responsible for such crimes are brought to justice.

Craig Whittaker: Calder Valley private and social landlords have reported to me the rising number of instances of houses in between tenancies being totally ripped apart—including water pipes, gas pipes and, indeed, electric wiring—causing thousands of pounds worth of damage. Does the Minister agree with me that the time has come for legislation to clamp down on rogue metal dealers who trade in such items?

James Brokenshire: The Government do not legislate lightly and have undertaken a range of work to tackle metal theft through non-legislative means. However, we have now reached the stage where the only conclusion is that new legislation is needed to tackle metal theft. We are therefore in discussion with other Departments to agree on the most appropriate option for bringing these changes forward.

Nadine Dorries: Does the Minister think it is time to change the law on the scrap metal industry? On Friday I met Alf Hitchcock, the chief constable of Bedfordshire, who informed me that his police force had targeted the dealers. The police found people coming along with stolen scrap metal, some of whom had driven vehicles there with stolen red diesel. The law at the moment pertains to an Act that was designed around the days of Steptoe and Son; is it not time to change the law?

James Brokenshire: As I thought I had already indicated, we believe that existing regulation of the scrap metal industry through the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 needs to be revised, as the law is no longer fit for purpose. We need to combine that with further enforcement and better intelligence, which is why the ACPO metal theft working group is seeking to equip police forces with the necessary tactical information to assist Bedfordshire and other police forces in cracking down on this crime.

Jim Cunningham: Has the Minister had any discussions with Virgin Trains, for example, and the police about what happens to the metal stolen from the railway lines, which can pose a severe hazard to public safety?

James Brokenshire: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the risk, threat, inconvenience and serious harm that can be caused by stealing cabling and signalling equipment from the railways. The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the British Transport Police has the lead role in respect of the work conducted by ACPO; it is actively engaged in that and is working with the rail industry, recognising the particular problems that the hon. Gentleman has identified and the threats posed to rail infrastructure.

Tom Clarke: Is the Minister aware of the appalling crime two years ago in the area of the former Auchengeich pit in my constituency relating to a beautiful piece of sculpture built by the community in honour of the 47 brave men who had lost their lives in a tragedy of 1959? The community came together again and built another statue. I have no criticism of Strathclyde police, but does the Minister agree that on such issues the closest co-operation among forces throughout the UK is helpful?

James Brokenshire: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Many sickening crimes have occurred where monuments and places that exist to celebrate our war dead or important historical incidents have been desecrated. I think the whole House will join me in utterly condemning those responsible for these appalling actions. That is why we are moving forward by tackling the problem with the new taskforce. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that providing better intelligence and co-ordination is helpful, which is precisely what we will do and are already doing.

Ian Austin: I welcome the importance that the Minister attaches to this issue, but it should not be too difficult to sort out. All he needs to do is to ensure that sellers verify their identity when selling metal and that each transaction is recorded, and to make cash payments for scrap metal illegal. That seems pretty simple to me and to businesses in the black country that are calling for those measures. Why can we not get on with this more quickly?

James Brokenshire: We are moving forward with this quickly. That is why we are taking the action that I have outlined today. We are also dealing with the aspects that he mentioned—on the regulation of the scrap metal industry, on having stronger enforcement powers to ensure that those responsible for these actions are held accountable for them, and on ensuring that we move to a cashless model of payment. Those are precisely the areas on which we are focusing, and we will report back to the House shortly.

Mark Garnier: My hon. Friend will know that not just schools and churches but voluntary organisations, such as the one that runs the Severn Valley railway in my constituency, have been victims of this invidious crime. He will also know that an all-party group on combating metal theft was set up last week under the joint chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly) and the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones). Will the Minister agree to meet me, along with other officers of the all-party group, to discuss how we can combat metal theft?

James Brokenshire: I am aware of the strong interest that the House attaches to this issue, which is evidenced by the fact that there are nine questions about it on today’s Order Paper. I believe that that constitutes a record number of Home Office questions on a single issue. My noble Friend Lord Henley, the Minister responsible for crime prevention and antisocial behaviour reduction, is well aware of the concern felt by Members of both Houses, and has told me that he would be very willing to meet members of the all-party parliamentary group.

Riot (Damages) Act 1886

Paul Goggins: What plans she has to review the Riot (Damages) Act 1886.

Nick Herbert: A review of the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 is under way, and will consider all options for reform. It will include all learning from the August disturbances, and will involve consultation with people affected by them who made claims under the Act as well as organisations involved in the recovery. We expect it to be completed before the end of the current financial year.

Paul Goggins: I commend the Minister for the positive way in which he is engaging with Greater Manchester police authority, which, as he knows, carries a liability of more than £9 million as a result of the disorder in August. As he conducts his review, will he ensure that there is more clarity about responsibilities and the financial support given to police authorities by the Home Office, and that more pressure is put on the insurance industry to deal with claims promptly?

Nick Herbert: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We have been concerned about the rate at which payments have been made, and last week I convened a meeting with representatives of the insurance industry to discuss the matter. They assured me that, according to their latest assessment, some two thirds of businesses have received a partial or full payment. However, there ought to be processes to ensure that people are paid more swiftly, and such processes need to be sorted out by police authorities and the industry.

Paul Maynard: Many of the people who have made claims under the 1886 Act have done so because of damage to their motor vehicles, but in 1886 the car had only been invented for a year. Can the Minister assure me that his review takes into account all the possible forms of damage so that no one will be excluded?

Nick Herbert: It is true that uninsured vehicles are not covered by the Act, as no one envisaged the need for them to be. They would be covered if they were on private property, but not if they were in a public place. Of course, if vehicles are insured, a claim can be made against the insurers. This is one of the issues that we shall have to consider in the review.

Police Funding

Lilian Greenwood: What discussions she has had with police authorities on the police funding settlement for 2012-13.

Nick Herbert: Last Thursday I laid the provisional police grant report for 2012-13 before the House. It set out provisional allocations of the Home Office core settlement for police authorities for 2012-13, and is now the subject of a consultation. I will consider all responses carefully.

Lilian Greenwood: The Deputy Prime Minister says that the funding settlement for Nottinghamshire police is “manageable”, but the police themselves say:
	“The Government’s inequitable cuts will impact on frontline policing in Nottinghamshire”.
	Who does the Minister think my constituents should believe?

Nick Herbert: Of course dealing with budget reductions is challenging for police forces, but we are convinced that they can do it. I recently met members of the Nottinghamshire force, including the chief constable, and we discussed the issues. The chief constable has acknowledged the difficulty of the decisions involved, but has also said that she is
	“doing all we can to protect frontline services and target resources to areas where the public are most commonly affected”.

David Hanson: The police settlement, which, as the Minister acknowledged, was published last week, takes a further £700 million out of the police budget at a time when we are seeing worrying increases in crime, with violent crime, burglary and theft all going up in last month’s figures. Senior police officers have already expressed their concern that the settlement means they will have to do far more than can be achieved through efficiency savings. If the police, in responding to this consultation, feel that it is inadequate to meet policing challenges next year, will the Minister think again? Will he ensure that the 3,000 extra police officers that the Liberal Democrats called for are put in place?

Nick Herbert: I note what the right hon. Gentleman says about these issues. He is trying to give the impression that a further reduction in funding has been announced, but he knows that that is not the case; these reductions were announced beforehand, as part of the review, and they have not changed in relation to the proposed allocation for forces. I also note that he is coming forward with his familiar solution—Labour’s only policy on the police—which is to call for more public spending. It is that attitude that got this country into the mess that we inherited from the previous Government. Perhaps he might have something more constructive to say about policing in future.

Forced Marriage

Caroline Dinenage: What steps she is taking to tackle the practice of forced marriage.

Lynne Featherstone: This Government are committed to ending the abusive practice of forced marriage and ensuring that victims are protected, as this is indefensible and never acceptable. The Government provide practical support to victims through the forced marriage unit, and we have today published a consultation on whether forced marriage should be made a criminal offence.

Caroline Dinenage: I thank the Minister for that answer and warmly welcome today’s announcement of a public consultation on this shameful practice. Does she agree that it is vital that the Government work closely with the relevant communities to ensure that women are no longer discouraged from reporting forced marriages?

Lynne Featherstone: My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and working with the communities is the only way deal with this issue. We want people to come forward and we do not want families to be deterred, so it is only by working with communities that we are likely to achieve our aims.

Home Department (Croydon Office)

Kevin Brennan: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the appointments booking system at her Department’s offices in Croydon.

Damian Green: The effectiveness of these systems is continuously monitored, including customer satisfaction with appointments booking. In Croydon, the UK Border Agency offers appointments for temporary and permanent migration at the public inquiry office, and for claiming asylum at the asylum screening unit.

Kevin Brennan: One of my constituents has been trying since August, both online and by telephone, to get an appointment for any day and any time. I know that the Minister is assiduous so, rather than just listen to what his officials tell him, will he do a bit of mystery shopping and try to get an appointment, online on his home computer or by telephone, to see whether or not the system is working in practice?

Damian Green: I am always happy to take the hon. Gentleman’s advice. He does not say whether this relates to the asylum screening unit or a general immigration appointment.

Kevin Brennan: It is general.

Damian Green: In that case, I will look at the efficiency of the system. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that over the past quarter, customer satisfaction with that booking system has improved markedly. Some 84% of customers surveyed stated that they were “very” or “fairly” satisfied with the effectiveness of the appointments booking system. If he wishes to give me the name of the person who is trying hard to get an appointment, I will ensure that they get one.

Migration

William Bain: What estimate she has made of the likely level of net migration in 2015.

Damian Green: The latest published estimates show net migration in the year to March 2011 at 245,000. That figure remains too high, which is why the Government are pressing ahead with their reform of the immigration system. This will bring numbers down to sustainable levels in the tens of thousands by 2015.

William Bain: The Prime Minister has said that, “No ifs, no buts”, net migration will fall to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament. Given that net migration into the UK was 32,000 higher in the 12 months to March 2011 than it was in the previous 12 months, does the Minister believe that he will ever meet this target?

Damian Green: Yes, I do. I find complaints about high immigration from those on the Labour Benches a bit rich, given what they did to the immigration system. I simply point the hon. Gentleman to the figures for the past six months, because over the past two quarters the figures have started coming down. We are beginning to make a dent in the disaster of Labour’s immigration policy.

Amber Rudd: I welcome the roll-out of the e-Borders system, but what role will the border police command play from 2013, as part of the National Crime Agency, in helping to reduce illegal immigration?

Damian Green: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that it will play a significant role. Of course, as well as having the policies that bring the overall numbers down we need proper enforcement mechanisms to ensure that they can be properly implemented. The National Crime Agency and the border command within it will play a significant role in improving the security of our borders.

Mr Speaker: I call David Morris.

David Morris: Thank you, Mr Speaker, but I believe that my question 21 has already been answered.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of setting a trend. If others followed it, our proceedings would conclude more speedily. I am grateful to him for his self-denial.

Topical Questions

David Amess: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Theresa May: As the House just heard, this Government are committed to controlling immigration and reducing net migration. We have already introduced an annual limit on the number of non-EU workers, overhauled the student visa route and increased enforcement
	activity. Our next steps are to break the link between temporary and permanent migration by restricting settlement rights and to reform family migration. Members of this House have played a crucial role in shaping these reforms and I welcome the opportunity for further such contributions in this afternoon’s Government debate, which will be ably led by my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration.

David Amess: While I recognise that my right hon. Friend has a very tough job as Home Secretary, does she understand my disappointment? When I first became MP for Basildon, we had one police station; by the time I left we had three and Lord Mackay of Clashfern had opened a magnificent courthouse. I then became the Member of Parliament for Southend West, where there are a huge number of elderly people and where I started off with three police stations, and I will shortly have none.

Nicholas Soames: Resign.

Theresa May: I feel the need not to let it rest there, Mr Speaker, but to respond to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) asked. I am sure that he will agree that what matters is accessibility to police. That is why one thing the Government are doing is reducing the amount of bureaucracy that the police have to deal with so that they can get out on the streets more. It is also why a number of forces up and down the country are considering accessibility in a different way, rather than simply having fixed police stations. I understand that Essex, for example, has seven mobile police stations that go to areas where people congregate, such as supermarket car parks, to increase accessibility to the police for members of the public.

Yvette Cooper: At the end of this month, the control orders legislation expires and the police and security services will have just six weeks’ transition to get the new weaker terrorism prevention and investigation measures and extra surveillance in place. The assistant commissioner of the Met, in a recent letter placed in the Library of the House, confirms the Met’s position last summer that
	“it would take at least a year to recruit and train additional surveillance teams”.
	She also says that
	“not all the additional assets will be immediately in place”.
	Why, then, is the Home Secretary so determined to push ahead with weaker counter-terror powers so quickly? Why does she not delay them and avoid piling extra pressure and risk on to the Met in the new year?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady knows full well that the Metropolitan Police Service and the Security Service will not have just six weeks to put transitional arrangements in place. They have been aware for some time that TPIMs would come in and extra funding would be available for extra surveillance. Subsequent to the letter sent by the assistant commissioner, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has written to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee to make it absolutely clear that effective transitional arrangements from control orders to TPIMs will be in place to ensure that we
	continue to do what we want to do and what everybody wants us to do: that is, maintain the security of people in this country.

Yvette Cooper: But the Met have been put in a very difficult position. This is Olympic year and they will have considerable additional pressures from policing the games, from counter-terrorism and from an £80 million budget gap. There are no guarantees that it will not have to stump up for some of the riot compensation, too. The letter from the Met says that
	“it is not possible to assess fully how the measures will work with the additional capability until both are fully in place and bedded in.”
	The Home Secretary is forcing the police to conduct an experiment with security in Olympic year. The letter says:
	“We will…seek to ensure that there is no substantial increase in overall risk to the UK.”
	Why does this Home Secretary want to be personally responsible for any increase in the overall risk to the UK in Olympic year as a result of the timing of her legislation? Why does she not think again?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady knows that when we introduced TPIMs we were able to give assurances about the mitigation of risks in relation to TPIMs and their replacement of control orders. I ask her to reflect on why the coalition Government reviewed counter-terrorism legislation when we came to power. It was because of a concern about the impact of some of the legislation that her Government had introduced. It was a rebalancing of the necessary role of ensuring national security and maintaining civil liberties that led us to review that legislation. We have in place measures that I believe will enable us to provide the security that we need to provide. The package of measures includes TPIMs and extra money for surveillance for both the Security Service and the police, and I am confident that that package will give them the degree of cover they need to ensure that we maintain security.

Greg Mulholland: My constituent Altaf Sadique had his car registration plate cloned earlier this year. He reported that to the police, who accepted the report and are aware that his car remains in west Yorkshire, but he continues to get fines from all around the country and the police say it is nothing to do with them. Will the Minister look seriously at having a national strategy to ensure that police forces co-operate to deal with this serious problem?

Nick Herbert: I will certainly look into the matter that my hon. Friend raises and I am happy to discuss it further with him. Police co-operation in all matters is, of course, desirable.

Kate Green: Tomorrow, the Howard League for Penal Reform will publish a report showing that about 50,000 children, including about 10,000 girls, spent the night in police custody in both 2009 and 2010. Will the Home Secretary look urgently at the inappropriate and overuse of the
	detention of children overnight? What can she do to improve processes between local authorities and the police?

Nick Herbert: I note the hon. Lady’s point and we will study the report when it is produced by the Howard League tomorrow.

Simon Kirby: What progress has the Minister made in identifying bogus colleges and what reassurances can he give to legitimate colleges in Brighton and Hove?

Damian Green: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said a few minutes ago, the number of colleges that did not register when the new proper accreditation system came in was more than 470. Some but not all of those will have been bogus colleges, so we have swept away a vast raft of bogus colleges. Reputable colleges can now be assured that we have a proper accreditation system. If they satisfy that system, their students and the wider community will know that they are genuine colleges.

David Lammy: I wrote to the Secretary of State two weeks ago asking her to review the Independent Police Complaints Commission’s handling of the Mark Duggan case. Given the catastrophe that was this morning’s pre-hearing inquest and the family’s declaring no public confidence in the IPCC, will she now look at its handling of the case and the thoroughness of this investigation?

Nick Herbert: I have just replied to the right hon. Gentleman. I have spoken to the acting chairman of the IPCC about the matter and the investigation, and he has assured me about the investigation’s integrity. We therefore see no reason at the moment to order any review. It is important that the investigation takes its course properly.

Craig Whittaker: Will the Minister explain what she is doing to ensure that the families of missing people get the help and support they need when a loved one goes missing?

Lynne Featherstone: We have published the new missing children and adults strategy, which has three important provisions. The first of these is prevention and reducing the number of people who go missing in the first place. The second is protection and reducing the harm to those who do go missing. The third is provision—providing support and advice to missing persons and their families by referring them promptly to agencies and ensuring that they understand how and where to access help.

Bill Esterson: Merseyside police have been very successful in cutting metal theft in my constituency, particularly by working with reputable traders. They deserve congratulations on their approach. Will the Home Secretary help the police across the country and back Labour’s four-point plan, including tougher police powers to close down rogue traders?

James Brokenshire: I welcome the work of Merseyside police and other police forces around the country in dealing with metal theft. It is why we are moving forward with the metal theft taskforce, and why that will also be responsible for greater co-ordination, but I hear the points that the hon. Gentleman makes about penalties. That is something that we are actively considering in the context of our review of the current legislation. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The House must come to order to hear Mr Gavin Barwell.

Gavin Barwell: Despite the tough settlement for the Metropolitan police, our borough commander in Croydon has found the resources for a dedicated team to tackle gangs. Given that gang members played a key role in the riots in Croydon on 8 August, can my right hon. Friend confirm that Croydon is one of the 22 areas to which she referred that will benefit from Government funding?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity of doing just that. I can confirm that Croydon is one of the 22 areas that will be receiving funding. That funding will be distributed according to the proportion of 10 to 24-year-olds in each of the 22 areas, and I can tell him that on that basis Croydon has the fourth highest proportion and will therefore receive the fourth highest sum of funding.

Ian Austin: The weekend before last, 13 British citizens including, disgracefully, a Member of this House, were present at a party in a French restaurant where members of that group—[Interruption.] It is no laughing matter—where members of that group toasted the Third Reich and chanted “Hitler, Hitler, Hitler,” behaviour which, I understand, is illegal in France. Will the Home Secretary give me her assurance that she will be contacting her French counterparts and giving them every promise that the matter will be dealt with?

Theresa May: I found it difficult to find in the hon. Gentleman’s question something relating to the Home Office. I understand the question that he raised, and I understand that the individual in question has apologised.

David Morris: I welcome plans to set up a professional body for policing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a body would be an ideal opportunity to promote the importance of high-quality training, which is very much in the interests of our police officers?

Nick Herbert: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have an important opportunity now to set up a professional body for policing to focus on the need to provide high-quality training for police officers and to set standards. I am grateful to the senior police leadership for engaging in our work to discuss the issue. We will be bringing proposals before the House.

Paul Flynn: Can the Minister give me the precise total number of prisons in Britain that are free from the use of illegal drugs?

Nick Herbert: I will write to the hon. Gentleman with that information.

Esther McVey: May I draw attention to the Merseyside police force and how it has handled staffing changes and efficiency savings over the past year? Not only has the force hit all its targets, but crime is down 3%, antisocial behaviour is down 6%, and public confidence is up 5%, so despite the scaremongering from the Opposition, it is possible to have efficiency savings and a decrease in crime.

Theresa May: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work that is being done by the Merseyside force in relation to the savings that it is making in its budgets. As Chief Constable Jon Murphy has said,
	“It’s not salami slicing but re-engineering the whole organisation.”
	As my hon. Friend has shown, that can be done effectively, saving money but providing a good service to the public. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The questions must be heard and Ministers must be heard.

Tessa Munt: The Home Secretary is aware that women prisoners will only ever move between women’s prisons, and similarly young people will only move through young offenders institutions. What discussions has she had with her counterparts at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that we look at prison education for women as a cluster and for young people as a cluster, instead of relying on local arrangements?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and behind it lies the important issue of the number of women who go to prison. For many women, an alternative arrangement might be more appropriate, which is something Baroness Corston raised in her report on women in prison. I will certainly take on board my hon. Friend’s point and ensure that it is put to the Secretaries of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Justice.

Mr Speaker: I have been saving the hon. Gentleman up. I call Mr Peter Bone.

Peter Bone: Does the Immigration Minister agree that on rare occasions something good comes out of the European Union and that we should appoint a national rapporteur on human trafficking?

Damian Green: I am afraid that on this issue I am more Eurosceptic than my hon. Friend, as I do not believe that a national rapporteur would improve our already very effective combating of human trafficking. Indeed, only two other EU member states have such a rapporteur.

EU Council

David Cameron: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last week’s European Council—

Hon. Members: Where’s Nick?

Mr Speaker: Order. The House must calm itself, taking whatever medicaments are required for the purpose, and the Prime Minister’s statement must and will be heard.

David Cameron: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	I went to Brussels with one objective: to protect Britain’s national interest, and that is what I did. Let me refer to what I said to the House last Wednesday. I made it clear that if the eurozone countries wanted a treaty involving all 27 members of the European Union, we would insist on some safeguards for Britain to protect our own national interests. Some thought that the safeguards I was asking for were relatively modest. Nevertheless, satisfactory safeguards were not forthcoming, so I did not agree to the treaty. Let me be clear about exactly what happened, what it means for Britain and what I see happening next.

Chris Ruane: Où est Clegg?

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Prime Minister. I hope that Members have now got it out of their system. The statement will be heard. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will have ample opportunity to question the Prime Minister, but courtesy and parliamentary convention dictate that the statement will be heard.

David Cameron: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	Let me take the House through the events of last week. At this Council, the eurozone economies agreed that there should be much tighter fiscal discipline in the eurozone as part of restoring market confidence. That is something that Britain recognises as necessary in a single currency. We want the eurozone to sort out its problems. That is in Britain’s national interest because the crisis in the eurozone is having a chilling effect on Britain’s economy too, so the question at the Council was not whether there should be greater fiscal discipline in the eurozone, but how it should be achieved.
	There were two possible outcomes: either a treaty of all 27 countries, with proper safeguards for Britain; or a separate treaty in which eurozone countries and others would pool their sovereignty on an intergovernmental basis, with Britain maintaining its position in the single market and in the European Union of 27 members. We went seeking a deal at 27 and I responded to the German and French proposal for treaty change in good faith, genuinely looking to reach an agreement at the level of the whole of the European Union, with the necessary safeguards for Britain. Those safeguards—on the single market and on financial services—were modest, reasonable and relevant. We were not trying to create an unfair advantage for Britain. London is the leading centre for financial services in the world, and this sector
	employs 100,000 people in Birmingham and a further 150,000 people in Scotland. It supports the rest of the economy in Britain and more widely in Europe.
	We were not asking for a UK opt-out, special exemption or a generalised emergency brake on financial services legislation. They were safeguards sought for the EU as a whole. We were simply asking for a level playing field for open competition for financial services companies in all EU countries, with arrangements that would enable every EU member state to regulate its financial sector properly. To those who say that we were trying to go soft on the banks, nothing could be further from the truth. We have said that we are going to respond positively to the tough measures set out in the Vickers report. There are issues about whether this can be done under current European regulations, so one of the things we wanted was to make sure we could go further than European rules on regulating the banks. The Financial Services Authority report on RBS today demonstrates just how necessary that is—[ Interruption ]—and perhaps instead of talking Opposition Members will remember their responsibility for the mess that they created.
	Those who say that this proposed treaty change was all about safeguarding the eurozone, and so Britain should not have tried to interfere or to insist on safeguards, are fundamentally wrong as well. The EU treaty is the treaty of those outside the euro as much as it is for those inside the euro, so creating a new eurozone treaty within the existing EU treaty without proper safeguards would have changed the EU for us, too. It would not just have meant a whole new bureaucracy, with rules and competences for the eurozone countries being incorporated directly into the EU treaty; it would have changed the nature of the EU—strengthening the eurozone without balancing measures to strengthen the single market.
	Of course, an intergovernmental arrangement is not without risks, but we did not want to see that imbalance hard-wired into the treaty without proper safeguards. To those who believe that that was not a real risk, I tell them that France and Germany said in their letter last week that the eurozone should work on single market issues such as financial regulation and competitiveness. That is why we required safeguards, and I make no apology for it.
	Of course, I wish those safeguards had been accepted, but frankly I have to tell the House that the choice was a treaty without proper safeguards or no treaty—and the right answer was no treaty. It was not an easy thing to do, but it was the right thing to do. As a result, eurozone countries and others are now making separate arrangements for the fiscal integration that they need to solve the problems in the eurozone. They recognise that this approach will be less attractive, more complex and more difficult to enforce, and they would prefer to incorporate the new treaty into the EU treaties in future. Our position remains the same.
	Let me turn to what this means for Britain. Britain remains a full member of the European Union, and the events of the last week do nothing to change that. Our membership of the EU is vital to our national interest. We are a trading nation, and we need the single market for trade, investment and jobs. The EU makes Britain a gateway to the largest single market in the world for investors; it secures half of our exports and millions of British jobs; and membership of the EU strengthens our ability to progress our foreign policy objectives, too,
	giving us a strong voice on the global stage on issues such as trade and, as we have seen in Durban this week, climate change and the environment.
	So we are in the European Union and we want to be. This week there will be meetings of the Councils on Transport, Telecommunications and Energy, and Agriculture and Fisheries. Britain will be there as a full member of each one, but I believe in an EU with the flexibility of a network, not the rigidity of a bloc. We are not in the Schengen no-borders agreement, and neither should we be, because it is right that we use our natural advantage as an island to protect ourselves against illegal immigration, guns and drugs; we are not in the single currency, and while I am Prime Minister we will never join; we are not in the new euro area bail-out funds, even though we had to negotiate our way out of them; and we are not in this year’s euro-plus pact.
	When the euro was created, the previous Government agreed that there would need to be separate meetings of eurozone Ministers, and it is hardly surprising that those countries required by treaty to join the euro chose to join the existing eurozone members in developing future arrangements for the eurozone. Those countries are going to be negotiating a treaty that passes unprecedented powers from their nation states to Brussels. Some will have budgets effectively checked and re-written by the European Commission. None of this will happen in Britain. But, just as we wanted safeguards for Britain’s interests if we changed the EU treaty, we will continue to be vigilant in protecting our national interests.
	An intergovernmental treaty, while it does not carry with it the same dangers for Britain, is none the less not without risks. The decision of the new eurozone-led arrangement is a discussion that is just beginning. We want the new treaty to work in stabilising the euro and putting it on a firm foundation. I understand why they would want to use EU institutions—but this is new territory and does raise important issues that we will want to explore with the euro-plus countries. So in the months to come we will be vigorously engaged in the debate about how institutions built for 27 should continue to operate fairly for all member states, Britain included. The UK is supportive of the role of the institutions, not least because of the role they play in safeguarding the single market, so we will look constructively at any proposals with an open mind. But let us be clear about one thing: if Britain had agreed treaty change without safeguards, there would be no discussion. Britain would not have proper protection.
	Finally, let me turn to the next steps. The most pressing step of all is to fix the problems of the euro. As I have said, that involves far more than simply medium-term fiscal integration, important though that is. Above all, the eurozone needs to focus, at the very least, on implementing its October agreement. The markets want to be assured that the eurozone firewall is big enough, that Europe’s banks are being adequately recapitalised, and that problems in countries like Greece have been properly dealt with. There was some progress at the Council, but far more needs to be done. The eurozone countries noted the possibility of additional IMF assistance. Our position on IMF resources remains the one I set out at the Cannes G20 summit. Alongside non-European G20 countries, we are ready to look positively at
	strengthening the IMF’s capacity to help countries in difficulty across the world. But IMF resources are for countries, not currencies, and cannot be used specifically to support the euro—and we would not support that.
	There also needs to be greater competitiveness between the countries of the eurozone. To be frank, the whole of Europe needs to become more competitive. That is the way to more jobs and growth. Many eurozone countries have substantial trade deficits as well as budget deficits. If they are not to be reliant on massive transfers of capital, they need to become more competitive and trade out of those deficits. The British agenda has always been about improving Europe’s competitiveness, and at recent Councils we have achieved substantial progress on completing the single market in services, opening up our energy markets, and exempting micro-businesses from future regulations. This has been done by working in partnership with a combination of countries that are in the eurozone and outside it. Similarly, on this year’s EU budget, it was Britain, in partnership with France, Germany and Holland, that successfully insisted on no real increases in resources—for the first time in many, many years in the EU.
	On defence, Britain is an absolutely key European player, whether leading the NATO rapid reaction force or tackling piracy in the Indian ocean. Our partnership with France—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for having to interrupt the Prime Minister. Those on the Opposition Front Bench, at the moment, are making the most noise. [ Interruption. ] Order. This is not acceptable. The Leader of the Opposition will have an opportunity to reply on behalf of the Opposition, and his colleagues must conduct themselves with a degree of reserve.

David Cameron: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	Our partnership with France was crucial in taking successful action in Libya. Britain will continue to form alliances on the things we want to get done. We have always had a leading role in advocating the policy of enlargement and, at this Council, we all celebrated the signing of Croatia’s accession treaty. That was one European treaty I was happy to sign.
	Let me conclude with this point. I do not believe there is a binary choice for Britain: that we can either sacrifice the national interest on issue after issue or lose our influence at the heart of Europe’s decision-making processes. I am absolutely clear that it is possible to be a full, committed and influential member of the European Union but to stay out of arrangements where they do not protect our interests. That is what I have done at this Council. That is what I will continue to do as long as I am Prime Minister. It is the right course for this country. I commend this statement to the House.

Edward Miliband: May I start by thanking the Prime Minister for his statement? We all note the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister from his normal place.
	The reality is this: the Prime Minister has given up our seat at the table; he has exposed, not protected, British business; and he has come back with a bad deal for Britain. The Prime Minister told us that his first priority at the summit was to sort out the eurozone, but the euro crisis is not resolved. There is no promise by
	the European Central Bank to be the lender of last resort, there is no plan for growth and there is little progress on bank recapitalisation. Will he first tell us why his promise of action did not materialise and what that will mean for the British economy in the months ahead? At the summit that was meant to solve these problems, the Prime Minister walked away from the table.
	Let me turn to where that leaves Britain. Many people feared an outcome of 17 countries going it alone. Few could have anticipated the diplomatic disaster of 26 going ahead and one country—Britain—being left behind. The Prime Minister rests his whole case on the fact that 26 countries will not be able to use the existing treaties or institutions. That is apparently the win that he got for this country. However, can he confirm that article 273 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union allows those countries to use the European Court of Justice? No doubt they will end up using the Commission’s services and, yes, even the buildings—the point that he made in the negotiations. In case anyone had any doubt, that was confirmed yesterday by the absent Deputy Prime Minister, who said:
	“Well it clearly would be ludicrous for the 26, which is pretty well the whole of the European Union…to completely reinvent…a whole panoply of new institutions.”
	The Prime Minister will not even be sent the agenda for the meetings that will start in January. He will read about decisions affecting British business in the pages of the Financial Times.
	The Prime Minister’s next claim was that he did not want to sign up to the fiscal rules being imposed on euro area countries. Can he confirm that no one even proposed that those would have applied to Britain? The next claim in his statement was that he did what he did because the treaty posed a grave threat to our financial services industry. However, over the whole course of the weekend, he has been unable to point to a single proposal in the proposed treaty that would entail the alleged destruction of the City of London. Will he tell us what the threat was?
	In any case, there is nothing worse for protecting our interests in financial services than the outcome that the Prime Minister ended up with. Will he confirm that he has not secured one extra protection for financial services? The veto on financial services regulation—he did not get it. The guarantees on the location of the European Banking Authority—he did not get them. Far from protecting our interests, he has left us without a voice.
	The sensible members of his party understand that as well as anyone. What did Lord Heseltine say—[ Interruption. ] Oh, how significant! That is what the Tory party now thinks of Lord Heseltine. What did he say at the weekend?
	“You can’t protect the interest of the City by floating off into the middle of the Atlantic.”
	It is no longer the Conservative party of Lord Heseltine; it is the Conservative party of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who went out on Friday saying that this was exactly what he had always wanted.
	What about the rest of British business, which the Prime Minister does not seem to have been thinking about? The danger is that the discussions about the single market, on which it relies, will now take place without us. Only this Prime Minister could call that leadership. The Deputy Prime Minister clearly does not
	agree with him. He said that the outcome leaves Britain “isolated and marginalised”. Does the Prime Minister agree with that assessment? How can he expect to persuade anybody else that it is a good outcome when he cannot persuade his own deputy?
	The Prime Minister claims to have wielded a veto. Let me explain to him that a veto is supposed to stop something happening. It is not a veto when the thing that you wanted to stop goes ahead without you. That is called losing. That is called being defeated. That is called letting Britain down. I have not finished with the Prime Minister yet. Next, I want to ask him—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I am worried about the health of the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames). He must calm himself and have a lie down, if necessary, while we listen to the Leader of the Opposition.

Edward Miliband: Next, I want to ask the Prime Minister about how he ended up with this outcome. The proposals he tabled, when he tabled them and his failure even to try to build alliances for them suggest someone who did not exactly want a deal. Can he confirm that what he actually proposed was to unpick the existing rules of Lady Thatcher’s Single European Act as regards the internal market? Given that those proposals would have changed 25 years of the single market, why did he make them in the final hours of the summit?
	Where were the Prime Minister’s allies? If he wanted a deal, why did he fail to build alliances with the Swedes, the Dutch, the Poles and Britain’s traditional supporters? If he really did want to protect the single market and financial services, why did he not seek guarantees that those issues would be discussed only with all 27 members in the room?
	In any case, the Prime Minister should not have walked away, because the truth is—[Interruption.] Just calm down. The truth is, the treaty will take months and months to negotiate. Other countries have carried on negotiating and carried on fighting for their national interest. The real answer is this: he did not want a deal, because he could not deliver it through his party. He responded to the biggest rebellion of his party in Europe in a generation by making the biggest mistake of Britain in Europe for a generation.
	So this is a bad deal, which we ended up with for bad reasons, and it will have long-lasting consequences. It is a decision that means we are on the sidelines, not just for one summit but for the years ahead. The Prime Minister said in this House on 24 October that what mattered
	“is not only access to that single market but the need to ensure that we are sitting around the table”.
	He went on:
	“That is key to our national interest, and we must not lose that.”—[Official Report, 24 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 38.]
	Well congratulations, Prime Minister, that is exactly what you have done. He has done what no Prime Minister ever thought was wise—to leave the room to others, to abandon our seat at the table.
	The Prime Minister says he had no choice. He did. He could have stayed inside and fought his corner; he should have stayed inside and fought his corner. Faced with a choice between the national interest and his
	party interest, he has chosen the party interest. We will rue the day this Prime Minister left Britain alone, without allies, without influence. It is bad for business, it is bad for jobs, it is bad for Britain.

David Cameron: A lot of sound and fury, but one crucial weakness—the right hon. Gentleman has not told us whether he would sign up to the new treaty. He had about 15 minutes, and he could not tell us whether he is for it or against it. Has it got enough safeguards in it, or has it got too few safeguards? Would a Labour Government back it, or would they veto it? Let me tell him: if you cannot decide, you cannot lead.
	Inasmuch as there were some specific questions, let me try to answer them. The right hon. Gentleman asks what the threat was to financial services. Why cannot he understand that if you allowed a new treaty of 17 members within the EU, without proper safeguards, huge damage could be done to the single market and to financial services? He asks what will happen when this new organisation goes ahead. Of course, a new organisation cannot do anything that cuts across the existing treaties or the existing legislation, so he does not even understand how the European Union works.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks what we gained from the veto. I will tell him: we stopped Britain signing up to a treaty without any safeguards. That is what we gained.
	On the issue of the City and financial services, the right hon. Gentleman completely fails to understand that this is a nationwide industry. It is not just the City of London; it is the whole of our country. I have to say, there was not a word about the report today showing that Labour was to blame for the appalling regulation of the Royal Bank of Scotland. Then, of course, we had a lecture—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. Members must calm down. I have my eye on one hon. Gentleman from the north of England who entered the House 32 years ago and should know better.

David Cameron: Of course, then we had a lecture on how to negotiate. I have to say that I am not going to take any lessons from people who gave in time after time to the comfy consensus rather than ever stand up for Britain. Just look at the record: the previous Government joined a bail-out scheme even though it was not protecting a currency that they were a member of; they gave up the rebate even though they got nothing in terms of the reform of agriculture; and they signed up to the Lisbon treaty but never had the courage to put it to the British people. Every time, they just go along with what others want.
	The Leader of the Opposition also talked about growth and jobs. Let me just say this: his plan, alone in Europe, is to spend more, borrow more and increase debt by more. All the while, if he wants to join the euro, he needs to understand that the treaty that is being established would actually make that illegal. The very thing he wants to do in Britain he wants to ban in Brussels.
	But the key question the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer is this: does he back this treaty or not? If the answer is yes, he should have the courage to say so. If
	the answer is no, he should have the honesty to say that I was right to keep Britain out of it. And let me just say this: just because the right hon. Gentleman is in opposition does not mean that he should oppose Britain’s interests.

Peter Tapsell: May I declare my admiration and full-hearted support for my right hon. Friend at this definitive moment in his first premiership, and query whether this Brussels summit achieved anything of strategic value to protect the threatened European banking system? Without the long-delayed and still unpromised massive support of the European Central Bank and the Bundesbank, the euro is doomed—[Hon. Members: “Doomed!”] Yes, doomed—and as Chancellor Merkel has said, the European Union is doomed with it.

David Cameron: I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend on the balance of effort that has been given, on the one hand, to new treaty powers and changes, and, on the other, to actually looking at what needs to be done, particularly in the short term, in terms of the firewall, bank recapitalisation and action by the ECB. More needs to be focused on those things rather than on the medium-term power changes in the EU, which I do not think are being hovered over by the markets, which are working out whether countries can pay their debts. In that regard, my right hon. Friend is right.

Jack Straw: There was no draft treaty before the European Council last Thursday and Friday; there was a set of draft conclusions. Will the Prime Minister set out the paragraph numbers that he thinks would have damaged Britain’s interests had we agreed to them? Will he also confirm that we had a veto on a financial transactions tax before the Council and that we still have one; and that financial services regulation was subject to qualified majority voting before last Thursday and still is?

David Cameron: As I said in my statement, the eurozone members wanted to create a new treaty within the EU, which has all sorts of dangers. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the letter that Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy sent, he will see that they specifically wanted the 17 to look at issues such as financial services and the market within that treaty. Without safeguards, a treaty within a treaty would have been far more dangerous than a treaty outside the EU.
	Let me repeat this point: a treaty outside the EU cannot do anything that cuts across European treaties or European legislation. Of course, that is not without its dangers, but my judgment was that without safeguards, an EU treaty was more dangerous.

Malcolm Rifkind: The leadership of the Prime Minister in Brussels compares favourably with the refusal of the Leader of the Opposition over three long days to indicate whether he would have supported the treaty. The public will come to their own conclusion.
	Does the Prime Minister agree that the term “two-speed Europe” is inaccurate, because it implies a destination that all countries will reach except over a different period? Whereas, is it not the case that the UK and
	perhaps other countries will never find it possible to accept a destination that involves not only a single currency, but fiscal union, tax harmonisation and supranational control of budgets? Is it not necessary to have a fundamental debate about whether Europe can become a Europe à la carte in order to survive?

David Cameron: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. This is not about the speed at which different organisations travel: it is about the fact that Europe already has different facets. Britain is not in the single currency or in the Schengen no-borders agreement, but we are a leading member of the single market and we play a huge role in foreign and defence policy throughout Europe and NATO. We should not be embarrassed about that, and we should do what is in our national interest—rather than thinking that the right thing to do is to sign up whether or not it suits us.

David Miliband: Will the Prime Minister confirm that in all the negotiations since 1973 the United Kingdom has never lost a significant vote on financial services regulation? Why does he think that his negotiating tactics in the future would fail where those of Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair succeeded, and why does he think that it is helpful to have driven nine other members of the European Union who are not in the euro into Franco-German hands?

David Cameron: For all the right hon. Gentleman’s experience, I think that he is very naive about what is happening in Europe over financial services. Time and again—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. Members must calm themselves. I am concerned for them, and I also feel that the Prime Minister must be heard.

David Cameron: There have been any number of examples of frankly discriminatory legislation against financial services in the European Union that have affected Britain very badly. Let me give the right hon. Gentleman one example. At the moment, the ECB is taking Britain to court on the basis that we should not be able to clear euros through London. So we would be put in the extraordinary position that banks in Britain could clear Swiss francs, dollars and yen, but—even though we are in the single market—we could not clear euros. That is one example of discriminatory legislation. When you are faced with a situation in which the 17 eurozone members want to go into a further treaty within the European Union, with all the powers and force that would have—[ Interruption. ] They are not going to have a treaty within the European Union: they are doing it outside—it is right to seek safeguards. That is why the right hon. Gentleman is naive not to understand that.

Menzies Campbell: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his unequivocal statement that our membership of the European Union is vital to our national interests, and express the hope that he may give it some wider currency in his own party? He mentioned both the single market and the eurozone. What practical steps can our Government take now to assist in reaching a solution to the problems
	of the eurozone and towards enhancing the opportunities provided by the single market, both of which are essential to the economic prosperity of this country?

David Cameron: Let me repeat again to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I do believe that it is in Britain’s interest to be in the European Union and to be active, especially on those dossiers where that is in our interest—chief among which is the single market. If we want to see what will make a difference to the single currency and the success of the eurozone, nothing matters more than competitiveness, where Britain should be very active, with others both in the eurozone and outside, to drive forward changes. We are fully committed to keeping up that work.

Margaret Hodge: Any politician with experience of doing business in Europe knows that you never go to a key European meeting without having done extensive and thorough preparatory work, so that as you walk in you are pretty much sure of the outcome you will get. Either the Prime Minister did not bother to do the preparatory work, and betrayed Britain’s long-term interests through sheer incompetence, or he had made up his mind before to use the veto because he was afraid of his own Back Benchers. Which of those two was it?

David Cameron: Let me say to the right hon. Lady that I went to Brussels wanting a result at 27, but there were safeguards that I believed that Britain needed. Frankly, you can have all the experience of negotiating in the world, but if you are not prepared to say no from time to time, you do not have any influence or power.

John Redwood: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent statesmanship. Does he agree that Britain has much more negotiating strength today, because Europe knows that it is dealing with a Prime Minister who will say no if he needs to, than when we had two Prime Ministers who gave in to bad deal after bad deal, including giving away our rebate for no good reason?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is the case that on too many occasions under the previous Government, Britain was outnumbered, but on the issue of the rebate, it was given away for nothing in return simply because they wanted to go along with a cosy and comfortable consensus. Sometimes it is necessary to say no. In my judgment, we did not have the safeguards that we needed, so, as a result, it was right not to agree to this treaty.

Denis MacShane: Out of every European Council meeting, there are perceptions and realities. The Prime Minister did list some of the realities, but may I put it to him that the perception around the world, in not just Europe but the United States, is that we have committed a diplomatic catastrophe? The words “isolated” and “Britain” are fused. To come back from that, will he assure the House that in all future negotiations, he will take with him the Deputy Prime Minister, who, I believe, spoke for Britain?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman, like so many of those who oppose what has happened, is part of exactly the same group of people who wanted us
	to join the single currency in the first place. They are never prepared to recognise that there are occasions when we need to safeguard our nation’s interests and we have to be able to say no.

Peter Lilley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to increase one’s influence within Europe and, indeed, within a coalition Government is to set up one’s position and stick to it?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question. I always find this slightly surprising. Before going to Brussels I set out exactly what I was going to do and what I would do if I could not get the safeguards. I did exactly what I said I was going to do, but apparently in politics these days that is very surprising.

Nick Brown: Will the Basel III regulatory regime for financial services apply in the United Kingdom?

David Cameron: I am afraid that I missed the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman’s question.

Mr Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to repeat his question?

Nick Brown: Will the Basel III regulatory regime for financial services apply in the United Kingdom?

David Cameron: Yes.

Andrew Tyrie: The Prime Minister must be right to do whatever is required to protect the 1.3 million jobs in our financial services sector. Will he confirm that the current EU proposals for the so-called maximum harmonisation of bank regulations could prevent us from implementing the conclusions of the Vickers commission to make our banks safer with a ring-fence?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. One of the things that we are concerned about is that if we want to take the extra action in this country to make our banks safe, including what Vickers is recommending, there is a danger—and this is the current advice—that the current European regulatory framework could stop us doing that. That is exactly the sort of safeguard—it is entirely reasonable, modest and relevant—to ask for in these negotiations. We did not get it, so, as a result, I was not content to go ahead with the treaty.

Nigel Dodds: May I, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, commend the Prime Minister for the stance that he took at the European Council? Indeed, his stance has been welcomed by the First Minister and many in the community in Northern Ireland. The question is where we go from here because there is still qualified majority voting. We can still be outvoted by perhaps a vindictive Europe. Will the Prime Minister now indicate what his next step will be to change the fundamental nature of the relationship that we currently have towards one based on co-operation and free trade and away from ever-closer political union?

David Cameron: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I have long believed, and still believe, that the balance of powers between Britain and Europe is not right, and I would like some of those powers returned. As Prime Minister, I specifically got the bail-out power back through my first negotiations on the European stability mechanism treaty. In the latest negotiations, we prevented a treaty from going ahead at the level of 27 because there were not adequate safeguards. Frankly, I think that we will see now a period of great change in Europe. No one quite knows where this new organisation outside the European treaties will go, what powers it will seek and how it will act. Neither does anyone know exactly how the eurozone will develop. My job in government is to protect and defend the national interest at all times, and that is what I will continue to do.

Richard Ottaway: As someone who is not known for his hostility to the European Union, I fully support the Prime Minister for what was an inevitable decision. However, the relationship between the fiscal compact of the 26 and the European Union remains uncertain. In particular, the fiscal compact reads:
	“The objective remains to incorporate these provisions into the treaties of the Union as soon as possible.”
	In the light of that, does he agree that the battle for Britain’s interest still has a long way to go?

David Cameron: The other EU countries recognise that going ahead at less than 27 has its disadvantages: they do not have the power and authority of the European institutions fully behind them and it will make some of the things that they want to do more difficult. None the less, we have set out our position. We believe that those safeguards are necessary, and I will not, and have not, changed my mind about that. I want to make this point one more time because I am not sure that everyone has taken it fully onboard: the disadvantage for those countries that will have a treaty outside the EU is that it means that nothing can be done in that treaty that cuts across the EU treaties or the legislation adopted under them. That is an important safeguard, given that we could not get the safeguard within the EU treaties.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. If I am to accommodate the large number of Back Benchers, as I always wish to do, we will require brevity, a textbook example of which will now be provided by Mr Chris Bryant. [Laughter.]

Chris Bryant: I think, Mr Speaker, that that was an example of irony.
	The single most important thing that our voters have seen over the past weeks and months has been the crisis in the economies across the whole of Europe, which is depressing the economy in this country as well. They want to ensure that they have jobs to go to next year. Last week, the Prime Minister surrendered an opportunity to do that; he surrendered his seat; and he surrendered to his Back Benchers. Is he not ashamed of himself?

David Cameron: And it all started so well! The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a crisis of jobs and opportunity across Europe, and a lot of that is
	linked to the chilling effect of the eurozone crisis. Some of that crisis needs to be resolved by better fiscal integration, and we can argue about whether that requires the treaty change being pushed for by France and Germany, but the real agenda—to help the eurozone and to help growth and jobs—is about competitiveness and the single market, and about ensuring that, even in the short term, there is the big bazooka, the re-capitalisation of the banks and the proper programme for Greece, which are all things that Britain has been pushing for.

William Cash: On the protection of the national interest, will my right hon. Friend gently remind the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition that even Edward Heath’s 1970 White Paper confirmed that we have to maintain and use the veto in the national interest and to protect the fabric of the European Union—then the European Community—as a whole? To adapt William Pitt’s phrase, my right hon. Friend has exerted all his influence to ensure that Britain is protected. Does he take it that Europe will learn from his example?

David Cameron: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. I agree that it is important that, when considering changing the institutions of the EU, there must be unanimity, and the veto is there for a purpose—if you feel that the national interests are not being protected. It is important that we maintain that in the EU.

Stuart Bell: The Prime Minister talked of us being a trading nation, of investment in jobs and of the importance of the eurozone. Why, then, did he not help the Greeks in their bail-out? Why has he not supported the European financial stability facility? Why is he not helping the European stability mechanism? Building on the questions from the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), what specific measures can the Prime Minister announce today to help the euro, trade, investment and jobs?

David Cameron: I respect the hon. Gentleman, who has a long track record on these issues, but on the Greek bail-out I am afraid I just do not support him. Britain was not in the original Greek bail-out—rightly, I think—and we should not be in subsequent Greek bail-outs. Frankly, the last Government made a mistake in getting us into the euro bail-out mechanism. We have got out of that, but that does not mean that Britain is not a generous nation that wants to help its allies. We have lent £5 billion to Ireland, and our economies are very integrated. I think the Irish are doing some very difficult things to get their economy back on track, and we support them in the work they are doing.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I appeal again for single, short supplementary questions.

Malcolm Bruce: Given that we are facing the worst financial crisis in living memory, does the Prime Minister agree with me that the UK coalition Government have a policy for dealing with it and that unfortunately the eurozone does not? What we now
	need, surely, is to work in parallel to ensure that we have outcomes that are not divergent, but deliver a strong pound and a strong euro.

David Cameron: I am very grateful for that question. Of course it is important to recognise in a coalition Government that both sides of that coalition cannot always achieve everything that they want to. However, it is important that we work together, and where we absolutely have agreed is on the importance of a programme of getting our economy back on track. It has been of huge benefit—and will continue to be of benefit to our country—that two parties have put their interests aside to work for the common good.

Tony Lloyd: The thing that was obviously lacking last Friday was any reference to growth or any ambition to get growth in the European economy. Can the Prime Minister dispel the rumour that he offered no leadership on that by telling us what proposals he tabled on European growth?

David Cameron: I am afraid that that is completely wrong. Britain has been very consistent, tabling proposal after proposal for growth. It is a British proposal to complete the single market in energy, a British proposal to complete the single market in services and a British proposal, which has just been passed, to exempt all micro-businesses—those with fewer than 10 employees—from future European regulation. Britain has the most pro-growth, pro-enterprise, pro-single market Government, and that is the way it is going to stay.

Bernard Jenkin: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on sticking to a very simple principle of fairness in the European Union: that the institutions for the 27 are there for the 27? May I also remind him and those on the Opposition Benches—and, indeed, the BBC—that he has the support not only of the Conservative party but of the British people for what he has just done?

David Cameron: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. The absolute key to this issue about the institutions is actually what the new organisation does, rather than necessarily what the institutions do. The key is to protect the single market and those things that are vital for Britain. As I keep repeating, the fact is that an organisation outside the EU treaties is not allowed to cut across those treaties or the legislation under those treaties. It would be a greater danger to allow a treaty of 17 to go ahead within the EU, with all the additional powers, bureaucracy and everything else that involves, unless, of course, you can get the safeguards I was seeking.

David Winnick: We have heard the Prime Minister give his account of the meeting. Can arrangements now be made urgently for the Deputy Prime Minister to explain to the House why he is very much opposed to what has occurred?

David Cameron: Let me be clear: the negotiating approach of the Government was agreed by the Government before I went to Brussels, because it was very important to set out and agree the safeguards that we believed were necessary—I also set them out to the
	House, by the way—and that was agreed. However, it is of course important to recognise that it is no surprise that Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have not always agreed about European integration. But, as I say, we have both put aside our interest to work in the national interest in having a Government who are able to clear up the mess that the hon. Gentleman’s party left.

Andrew Rosindell: If there were ever any doubt before, may I tell the Prime Minister that there is none today in the minds of the British people that we are led by a Prime Minister with the courage to put our country’s interests first? I thank him for displaying the bulldog spirit in Brussels last week, but will he discuss the long-term future of Europe with members of the European economic area and Switzerland and Turkey, which have customs union with the European Union, to ensure that we are all working together?

David Cameron: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support but would repeat the point I made last Wednesday. Of course Britain has a key interest in being in the European Union. I do not believe that the sort of options that other countries have outside the European Union give them anything like the influence that we have, because it is not just the markets we need open; it is a say over the rules of those markets. That is what membership of the single market gives us in this country.

Michael Meacher: Is it not utterly bizarre that the Prime Minister has marginalised this country and recklessly thrown away Britain’s international influence, from Washington to Beijing, solely to protect the City from regulation when it is urgently in need of some regulation? In any case, his veto cannot protect the banking sector from any future EU finance directives. Is he not therefore ashamed that never before has so much been thrown away for so little or, indeed, needlessly for almost nothing?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman clearly wrote his questions before coming to the House and listening to my statement. As I set out in the statement, we were not seeking special protections for the City; we were seeking a level playing field. Indeed, in some ways, we were asking to be able to have more regulation here in the UK, not least because of the shambles of RBS. Let us be clear: the Financial Services Authority report today names only three politicians as culpable—Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister and the shadow Chancellor, who was the man partly responsible for this complete shambles that we now have to clear up.

Martin Horwood: This morning The  New York Times questioned whether this country’s interests—or, indeed, the City’s interests—were not at greater risk, following this weekend’s events. Looking forward, what positive reassurance can the Prime Minister give to potential foreign investors that we will remain at the heart of European economic decision making?

David Cameron: International investors know that Britain has the advantage of being a member of the single market, but outside the eurozone and the euro. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that the greatest risk
	for Britain would be to go into a treaty, including a new treaty of the 17 at the EU level, that did not safeguard our interests. Of course I would rather that our protocol had been accepted and that those protections and safeguards had been put in place; they were not, so the greater danger would have been to go ahead with a treaty without those safeguards.

Ben Bradshaw: Given that Britain has, or perhaps had, many natural friends and allies in the rest of Europe, why does the Prime Minister think he failed to persuade a single one of them of his case?

David Cameron: There is great understanding of Britain’s interests in the European Union and great support for our backing of the single market, particularly among countries like Holland, Sweden and Germany and the Baltic states. We have just achieved a breakthrough deal—something the right hon. Gentleman never achieved in all his years in government—of a freeze in the EU budget. Britain did that by having allies and supporters in the EU who backed our move.

Andrea Leadsom: Does the Prime Minister share my concern that Opposition Members just do not get it? They talk about the need to create jobs in Britain, yet they criticise him for looking after Britain’s financial services that provide 11% of our tax base and 2 million jobs in this country and are our biggest net export. When are the Opposition going to understand that my right hon. Friend was standing up for British interests?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point—that the financial services go way beyond the City of London. As I said in my statement, 100,000 people are employed in the financial services in Birmingham, and the sector makes up 7% of UK employment; it is responsible for £1 of every £9 collected in tax, and 3% of our trade surplus. It is a hugely important industry. There would be a threat if there were a treaty of the 17 in the EU without the proper safeguards; that is why I vetoed that approach.

Dennis Skinner: Is this not the same Prime Minister who month after month has been castigating working people for not staying at meetings to deal with pensions? He has walked out, without using his veto; he has walked out, without getting a rebate like Mrs Thatcher; and he has walked out without a couple of opt-outs like Major. As Del Boy would say, what a plonker!

David Cameron: I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that I did not at any stage walk out of the meeting. What I did was to press Britain’s interests as a British Prime Minister should.

Julian Lewis: Now that the Prime Minister has cast his vote on Europe so effectively in Brussels, does he think there is any chance that the British people might one day have an opportunity to do something similar over here?

David Cameron: I wondered how long we would take to reach that issue. I believe that this is the most important use of a referendum: if there is a proposal for
	this House of Commons, or any Government, to pass powers from this House to somewhere else, we should ask the British people first. That, for me, in a parliamentary democracy, is the right use of a referendum. However, as we are not signing a treaty, I think that the whole issue of a referendum does not arise.

Mike Gapes: Does the Prime Minister believe that if Baroness Thatcher and John Major had followed his negotiating tactics, we would have had the Single European Act or the opt-outs on Maastricht that John Major negotiated with Chancellor Kohl?

David Cameron: The point about the Single European Act is that it was in Britain’s interest, which is why Margaret Thatcher signed it. The Maastricht treaty was only in Britain’s interest if we could get an opt-out from the single European currency, and that is what John Major achieved. I could not get a treaty with safeguards, so I was right to say no.

Mark Pritchard: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his leadership on this issue and on putting the British national interest first, unlike the Labour party when it was in power for 13 years. Has he seen the results of an opinion poll today, which show huge support in the country for his actions, unanimous support among Conservative Members, and, most revealingly and interestingly, the support of 49% of Liberal Democrat voters?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. The key issue for me was not whether this would be popular today, tomorrow or next week, but what was the right thing for Britain, and I judged that a treaty without safeguards was not right for Britain. [Interruption.] For all the interruptions from Opposition Members, I think that until they answer the question “Would you sign this treaty?”, a little bit of silence is needed.

Caroline Lucas: Given that it was precisely the City of London’s deregulated recklessness that did so much to exacerbate the impact of the financial crisis in this country, can the Prime Minister tell us why he persists in behaving as if the interests of the City were synonymous with the national interest, which they clearly are not?

David Cameron: I am not sure that the hon. Lady was listening, but the point is that there are some ways in which we actually want to regulate banks and financial institutions more, but are not able to because of the European Union rules. Some of the other issues that I was considering were specifically about discrimination: it is quite wrong that we, as a member of the single market, are not able to deal in euros in the same way as we are able to deal in dollars and yen.
	This was a very straightforward set of undertakings, and it was not about special protection for the City. I hope that I got that across in my statement, and I hope that the hon. Lady will support us when we reach those regulations.

Nadine Dorries: Over the weekend it was impossible to meet a resident of Mid Bedfordshire who was not full of praise and admiration
	for what the Prime Minister had done in Brussels, but does he share my concern about the fact that the most cowardly and negative attacks over the weekend came not from the Labour party—which is incapable of opposition—but, unfortunately, from the Liberal Democrats? That cowardice is surpassed only by the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister from the Chamber today.

David Cameron: I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend, grateful though I am for her support. We have to recognise that we are in a coalition, and that parties in a coalition cannot achieve all the things that they want to achieve. I think that we must praise each other in the coalition when we make sacrifices on behalf of the country.
	The Liberal Democrats did agree to the negotiating strategy that we pursued. I can be very clear: I came to the House, I said what I was going to do, and I then did what I had said I was going to do, because I could not achieve the safeguards that I wanted. That was a very straightforward way in which to act, and, I hope, one that every Member on this side of the House can support.

Frank Field: At what stage of the negotiations did the Prime Minister realise that France and Germany would do their best for us not to sign? As this is a period of Christmas cheer, can he give us an undiplomatic reply?

David Cameron: My right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] Well, we often agree. It was obviously a developing situation, but I had a meeting with Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy before the Council began. I had been to see the German Chancellor three weeks before the Council, I had been to see the French President a week before the Council, and I think that there was a good prospect of making an agreement. Conversations were also held with a huge number of Finance Ministers and other Government leaders. Clearly the 27 would rather have a deal at 27. They see the problems and difficulties of what they are proposing, but in the end they were not willing to give the safeguards—rational, moderate, reasonable and sensible though they were—and, as a result, I think I did the right thing.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to know that the toast of the people in Somerset was to the pilot who weathered the storm, because he has stood up for democracy, he has stood up for free trade and he has stood up for free markets, and this is to be wonderfully commended.

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for his such full-voiced support.

Natascha Engel: The Prime Minister said that he went to Europe seeking a treaty change and, had he got that treaty change, he would have had to have held a referendum. If that is the case, can he confirm that success in his eyes would have been a referendum? If so, why does he not hold one?

David Cameron: With huge respect to the hon. Lady, I think that she is wrong on both counts. I did not go to Brussels seeking a treaty change; the point was
	that if a treaty change was put forward, there needed to be safeguards for Britain. That is the first point. The second point is that I did not go thinking that a treaty change would necessarily lead to a referendum, because I was not willing to sign up to a treaty change that passed power from Britain to Brussels, so I am afraid that both parts of her question are inaccurate. I also did not go to Brussels with an impossibly long list of demands because of pressure or anything else; I went to Brussels with a set of proposals that were modest, reasonable and relevant.

Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend reassure successful, outward-looking businesses in Mid Sussex, some of which are understandably anxious about the consequences of what may flow from this weekend, that what the United Kingdom seeks is an adaptable, flexible and competitive EU, and that we will continue to play a full and creative role in Europe, as well as fortifying our important, substantial bilateral relations elsewhere?

David Cameron: I agree wholeheartedly with what my right hon. Friend says and I will reassure those businesses. The absolutely key thing is that the single market, which is fully protected by the European Commission, the European Court of Justice and all the institutions of the EU, is unchanged. We have full membership of those treaties and of that organisation, and because the other EU members are going for a treaty outside the EU, that protection will remain. I would say to those businesses that not only do we maintain the single market, but we will keep up the pressure for something else they need, which is a more fundamental solution to the crisis affecting the eurozone.

Elfyn Llwyd: The UK is 90,000 square miles in area, but the Prime Minister seems to think that only one square mile is of any importance. May I put it to him that his colleague—the self-styled “pragmatic revolutionary”—the Deputy Prime Minister was heavily supportive of the Prime Minister on Thursday and Friday, but was yesterday condemning him? Does the Prime Minister have any idea what he is thinking now?

David Cameron: On the issue of financial services, this is not about just one square mile of the United Kingdom. I think of people working in the financial services industry in Cardiff, and I think of banks, building societies and insurance businesses right across Wales. They need to know that there is fair regulation within the EU and they want those safeguards too. It is not just about those industries on their own; it is about the support they give to the other industries as well.

Conor Burns: May I add my words of support for the Prime Minister, who at the weekend kept faith with this House and, more importantly, with the country? Can he confirm that, as the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, the existing treaties of the European Union belong to all 27 member states and that there can be no question of the eurozone countries having recourse to the institutions, mechanisms and procedures of those treaties?

David Cameron: I think what my hon. Friend says is important. The treaties belong equally to those who are in the euro and those who are out of the euro. The key thing is that if there are going to be further changes to those treaties—if you are going to allow the eurozone members to do something within the architecture of the European Union—it is important to get safeguards for those countries that are not in the euro, not going to join the euro, want to safeguard the single market and recognise that there is a potential threat to financial services. That is what we were about in Brussels and that is what matters.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. Once again, I appeal to Members to help each other by being brief.

Keith Vaz: Given the current economic crisis in Europe, does the Prime Minister believe that the Europe 2020 strategy still has a future as a successor to the Lisbon benchmarks, and is he confident that we will achieve those shared goals?

David Cameron: The short answer is that the 2020 strategy needs to have a future and we must encourage European Union countries to spend more time focusing on what really drives growth, which is completing the single market, rather than some of these initiatives on medium-term fiscal austerity and big transfers of sovereignty. I know that they are important—and particularly important for some in the EU—but real growth will be driven through the single market.

Steve Brine: May I remind the Prime Minister that we on these Benches and the vast majority of the British people support what he did last week and are very glad that it was this party leader and this party leader alone who was speaking up for Britain at this summit? Does he agree with one of his predecessors? She said:
	“Europe is strongest when it grows through willing co-operation and practical measures, not compulsion or bureaucratic dreams.”—[Official Report, 22 November 1990; Vol. 181, c. 451.]

David Cameron: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. The point I made in my statement about Europe being a network, not a bloc, is completely consistent with that. We should not be shy about its developing as a network, with some networks we want to be in and others we do not.

Frank Dobson: Will the Prime Minister confirm that British banks and finance houses hold about £75 billion of bonds issued by eurozone Governments and that in the event of a default, with nobody representing Britain, he will still be expected to get the British taxpayer to bail some of them out?

David Cameron: The exposure of the British banks to European countries is published by the Bank of England—quite right, too—and obviously we want to avoid a collapse of the eurozone and to ensure that it takes the necessary steps to prevent that from happening.
	This Government will obviously always do whatever is necessary to safeguard our financial system and the economy.

Jo Swinson: Against the odds, an excellent deal on climate change was agreed in Durban this weekend, with the UK playing a leading role alongside our EU counterparts. Would the Prime Minister reflect on whether such constructive and positive diplomacy might be a better approach to securing British interests than rushing for the exit?

David Cameron: I certainly agree that the Durban outcome is worth while and it is a staging post towards another global deal, which is very worth while. I am afraid I do not see any contradiction between being incredibly positive and constructive and having a bottom line. When you have a bottom line, it is quite important that you stick to it.

Hugh Bayley: Over the years to come, as a result of the Prime Minister’s decisions, economic and financial power will inevitably drain away from London to Frankfurt. How is that in the interests of British manufacturing or British financial services?

David Cameron: This is exactly the argument that was made about the euro. I remember it very well. People said that if we did not join the euro, Frankfurt would be the major financial centre of Europe and not Britain. Frankly, it was scaremongering then and is scaremongering now—from the same people.

David Evennett: I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and his standing up for British interests, which I am sure will be widely supported across the whole country. Does my right hon. Friend remember the words of the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, after a confrontation with Europe, when he said:
	“If we are isolated and we are in the right, then that’s the correct position”
	to be in? Would he not agree?

David Cameron: Yes.

Malcolm Wicks: Is this the first case in recorded history of a proud premiership team relegating itself to a second division, cheered on by the new English Tea party?

David Cameron: Again, this is the same argument that we had at the time of the debate about whether Britain should join the euro and it is largely the same people making it. They were in favour of it and felt that not joining the euro meant relegating oneself to the second division. Frankly, I am glad that Britain is out of the euro. We are able to set our own interest rates and make our own decisions for the benefit of our economy here in Britain and we are better off because of it. It is the same arguments from the same people; they were wrong then and they are wrong now.

Philip Davies: The Prime Minister should be in doubt that he did the right thing last week. Will he confirm that he will not make any further policy
	concessions to the lickspittle Eurofanatics on the Lib Dem Benches as a result of doing the right thing for Britain last week?

David Cameron: I am always grateful for my hon. Friend’s support but he tends to take it just a little too far. The coalition is right for Britain and I want it to go on working for the good of Britain. We have to recognise that that sometimes means we cannot get the things we want.

Clive Efford: Will the Prime Minister explain specifically what safeguards are in place today for the City of London and British interests that were not in place last week?

David Cameron: Clearly, if we had been able to achieve the protocol on financial services there would have been greater safeguards, but the safeguard we do have is that we are not signing up to a treaty that could have put that industry in danger.

Henry Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his bold and courageous stance in the early hours of the morning last Friday and I should like to pass on the thanks that many of my constituents have expressed to me over the weekend. Will he confirm that of the nations at the European Council that did sign up to an agreement, the Parliaments of Bulgaria, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania and others such as Hungary still need to approve and ratify it?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We do not yet know exactly how the new organisation and treaty will develop or how many countries will sign up to it. There will then be a huge process involving very detailed scrutiny by and punishment from the European Commission if Governments draw up inappropriate budgets or have a structural deficit of greater than 0.5%. Labour left us a structural deficit of—what was it?—7% or 8%? There are big processes to go through before the treaty is either finalised in March or implemented, for which it will again have to be put to Parliaments and, possibly, even to referendums as well. There are many hoops to go through.

Austin Mitchell: I am not going to criticise the Prime Minister for using his veto because that job can safely be left to his Liberal Democrat colleagues who are hawking their consciences around the media. Surely, however, he would have done better to use the big bazooka later when the undemocratic and deflationary consequences of this Merkozy diktat became clear, because at that stage he would have had lots of allies, which he should have had now and used now.

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting argument. There are big questions to answer for the countries that are signing this. I think you have to have that sort of fiscal co-ordination with a single currency—he and I probably agree that that is one of many reasons why we should not join a single currency. My job at that European Council was to stand up for Britain’s interests and that is what I did.

David Nuttall: I welcome the stance taken by the Prime Minister. Given that the other members of the European Union refused to agree
	even to the very modest proposals that he put forward, what chance is there of their ever agreeing to allow this country to regain control over such matters as those covered by, for example, the working time directive?

David Cameron: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question, but I am not as pessimistic as he is that there is no prospect of rebalancing powers within the European Union. There are possibilities and opportunities. We did that in terms of the bail-out fund and I think there will be opportunities in future.

Stewart Hosie: The concordat on the co-ordination of European Union policy is very clear—it requires the UK Government to engage with the devolved Governments in the formulation of UK policy, but that clearly did not happen on this occasion. How will the Prime Minister now explain to Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh that adopting an isolationist policy and abdicating all leadership is anything other than damaging and dangerous?

David Cameron: I do not accept that. In the final analysis, our relations with the European Union are a reserved issue for the UK Parliament and the UK Government. To be fair to this Government, we have gone further than any previous Government on the issues that really matter to people in Scotland—about the single market, fisheries and decisions taken within the European Union—to work very constructively with the other Administrations.

Elizabeth Truss: Does the Prime Minister agree that Britain’s influence in the world is dependent on our economic strength, our productivity and our competitiveness, and that we should not trade away these valuable assets?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Every country in Europe is challenged at present in relation to its economy, and it is very important to make sure that we are safeguarding Britain’s interest, staying in the single market, seeking extra safeguards for finance and other industry, and making sure we can grow out of this crisis.

Kate Hoey: The Prime Minister must know that right across the UK, the majority of the public and—dare I say it on the Opposition Benches?—the majority of Labour voters support what the Prime Minister has done. He knows that that is the reality. Does he agree that instead of seeing ourselves isolated in Europe, what the public want to see now is our looking to be much more internationalist and less little Europeanist?

David Cameron: I have great sympathy with what the hon. Lady says. What it requires is both action within Europe on issues that matter to us, such as the single market, and a recognition that we should be refreshing and restoring our links with other parts of the world, whether it is the Gulf, the Commonwealth or the fast-growing countries of south-east Asia. This Government are committed to doing all those things.

Robert Smith: In Aberdeen in the north-east of Scotland and in Norway, there is considerable concern that the draft regulations on offshore drilling for oil and gas threaten the gold safety standard achieved in the North sea. Will what happened last week make it easier or more difficult to get the qualified minority necessary to make sure that those regulations are withdrawn and a directive is used as a means of implementing them?

David Cameron: I do not think what happened last week will have any impact on that decision because these are issues that are dealt with properly in the single market, and an organisation set up outside the EU cannot cut across existing treaties or existing legislation. We should work very hard to make sure we get a good deal for the North sea.

Kelvin Hopkins: The great former Labour politicians Peter Shore and Bryan Gould both said that the single currency would fail, and they have been proved absolutely right. Does the Prime Minister accept that the choice is between a controlled deconstruction of the euro or an uncontrolled crash, and will he make this point to his European colleagues?

David Cameron: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that “I told you so” is not an economic policy. I have every sympathy with what he says. I have never supported Britain joining the euro because a single currency implies a single economic policy and a single fiscal policy, and trying to run those things across different democracies is so incredibly difficult. That is what they are struggling with, but if I am asked what is Britain’s interest today, I would say that it is for the eurozone to sort out its problems. A break-up of the eurozone would have very severe consequences for banks across Europe and also for banks here in Britain, and could trigger some very, very difficult economic times. In spite of what the hon. Gentleman says, we should be working constructively to encourage eurozone countries to do what is necessary, particularly in the short term, to stabilise a difficult situation.

Andrew Selous: May I warmly congratulate the Prime Minister on standing up for British interests last week and on refusing to take the approach of Labour, who signed away £7 billion of British rebate for nothing in return?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. What we do not know is what the Opposition’s approach is to this issue. Despite all the fury we have heard from those on the Opposition Benches, they cannot tell us whether they support the treaty proposal or not.

Stephen Timms: Britain will continue to be subject to EU single market financial services regulation. Do we not now have a major problem in that we will be absent when many of those rules are drawn up?

David Cameron: That is absolutely not the case because this new organisation cannot draw up or pass proposals that cut across EU treaties or EU legislation. The right hon. Gentleman knows this well. It is the case
	that Britain has suffered from some of the regulation that has come out of Brussels on financial services, and that we need greater safeguards. If we cannot get those safeguards within a treaty, it is better that those countries are in a separate treaty. That is a better safeguard than the alternative, and that is the point that he needs to understand.

Gavin Barwell: The Leader of the Opposition’s argument that one should never leave an empty seat at the table is surely a criticism of the previous Government’s failure to join the euro. [Hon. Members: “What?”] There has been an empty seat at the table ever since we did not join the euro. Does my right hon. Friend agree that somebody who is never prepared to disagree with our European friends, even when that is in British interests, is not fit to hold the office of Prime Minister?

David Cameron: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. His point about the creation of the euro being the fundamental moment that created these tensions in Europe is entirely right. The previous Government’s position was that they wanted to get us into the euro, but they realised that that was not possible. I think that that is still their policy. It was the creation of the euro that fundamentally changed the relationship in Europe, but even they decided that it was okay for eurozone countries to meet on their own. That is not being isolated; it is recognising the reality that Britain does not want to be in the euro, so we cannot stop the meeting going ahead.

Kevin Barron: Given that last Thursday was not about joining the euro but about protecting the interests of the euro as a currency and, therefore, the interests of our national economy, as the Prime Minister has said this afternoon and on several occasions over the past few weeks, why has he walked away from such a responsible position and allowed our economy potentially to be attacked if there is no success in looking after the interests of the euro? We did it with Ireland, and rightly so, so why are we not looking at taking action more widely to protect the interests of this country?

David Cameron: What we did with Ireland, as a very close neighbour, long-standing friend and integrated economy, was give it a bilateral loan, which was the right thing to do. I do not accept that the proposal put forward on Thursday night and Friday morning is the most important part of delivering a successful euro. We need to spend more time on the single market, on competitiveness and on short-term measures to stabilise the eurozone. I simple do not believe that whether a treaty is within or without the EU will make a huge difference to the future of the euro.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. Short, single-sentence questions and the Prime Minister’s characteristically pithy replies would enable me to get in all Members who are still standing. I ask them to help me to help them.

Peter Bone: I have received an important message to pass on to the Prime Minister: “The efforts of the Prime Minister on Thursday night gave me great pleasure. Yours ever, Mrs Bone.”

David Cameron: As ever, I am grateful for her support.

Wayne David: Is it correct that the Deputy Prime Minister said that he is not here because he does not want to be a distraction?

David Cameron: The point is that the Deputy Prime Minister and I agreed the negotiating strategy for the European Council, and that is important because it was the whole Government who were doing it at the Council.

Greg Mulholland: The Prime Minister was negotiating as the Prime Minister of the coalition Government. Does he agree that now is not the time to listen to either those who say that we should leave the EU, or those who say that we should push into political and fiscal union, and can he tell the British people that he will stick to the coalition policies and get the economy back on its feet?

David Cameron: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and absolutely confirm that that is the case. The coalition is united in wanting to have growth policies across Europe and in promoting the single market in a very active way, and I can guarantee that we will continue to do that.

Meg Hillier: The Prime Minister had the opportunity to visit Feltham and Heston last week and arrived late at the European summit. How many leaders of the 26 other EU member states did he speak with in the fortnight before the summit?

David Cameron: First, I went to Feltham and Heston because I do not believe in the normal chicken theory that Prime Ministers should stay away from by-elections, so I am proud to have gone. I spoke to a wide audience of DHL employees who live in the constituency and encouraged them to vote Conservative before Christmas. After that, I popped in to see my son’s nativity play, which was also a rare joy. I got to the European Council some time before it started and met the Italian Prime Minister, the French President and the German Prime Minister. In addition, I had had a series of telephone calls with the Dutch Prime Minister, the Swedish Prime Minister and many others besides. I am sure that the hon. Lady understands—it is called multi-tasking.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My right hon. Friend had no option but to use his veto, if British interests were to be protected. Does he agree that the euro sovereign debt crisis is still the most important threat to us all and that that is what our eurozone partners ought to be concentrating on, rather than unwanted treaty changes?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I quite understand why particularly the Germans want this fiscal union and want tougher rules because they do not want to see irresponsible behaviour repeat itself. One can debate whether that actually requires change in the treaty or not, but we have to spend more
	time on the other parts of solving the crisis, which are to do with short-term changes and longer-term competitiveness.

Barry Sheerman: The Prime Minister is aware that this situation represents one of the most fundamental changes in our national politics and in European politics. Will he assure the House that in all his future negotiations he will be mindful to look after not just financial services but the manufacturing sector and other service industries that do not have a part to play in the City of London?

David Cameron: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not see financial services on their own, because they obviously have a role in supporting the rest of the economy. The key in terms of Europe for the rest of the economy is the single market, and that is what we are determined to safeguard.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The UK wields its influence in the EU in many different ways, and our net contribution to the EU in 2010-11 was £9.2 billion. We are the second-largest net contributor, so perhaps we could become a little more like the unions with Labour and demand a little more influence for our money.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which is that we are a major player in the European Union, not least because we are the second-largest net contributor, which gives us a huge amount of influence. We have safeguarded the European Union and its treaties—not allowing them to be changed if we were not able to get the safeguards that we needed.

Chris Ruane: Does the Prime Minister know the whereabouts of the Deputy Prime Minister; and will their tiff lead to separation and divorce?

David Cameron: No.

David Rutley: I should like to pass on the hugs, best wishes and kisses from people in Macclesfield, who are very grateful for the stance that the Prime Minister took last week. Under the previous Government, from 2005 the burden of EU regulation cost British businesses billions of pounds each year. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to reduce, rather than increase, the burden of EU regulation?

David Cameron: I am grateful for that question. We are working extremely hard, particularly in the area of the single market, to encourage the Commission, which is now looking at reducing the burden of the regulation that it passes and, specifically, the burden of regulation on businesses that employ fewer than 10 people. We have for the first time secured the idea of a moratorium: there will not be more regulations on them in the coming years.

Pat Glass: May I remind the Prime Minister that it is the jobs of not just the banks and the City of London which matter here? Millions of jobs throughout the country and in
	constituencies such as mine rely directly on the EU and on Britain being at the centre of the EU. Now that we are no longer at the table, who is going to stand up for those jobs?

David Cameron: I say to the hon. Lady, first, that the RBS report reminds us of the terrible effect on the rest of the economy when the banking system goes wrong because it is not regulated properly, so there is a very important connection. Secondly, other businesses require us to safeguard the single market, and that is exactly what I did.

Mike Weatherley: Given that we are the second-largest contributor to Europe, does the Prime Minister agree that without our contribution Europe would fail?

David Cameron: It does mean that we have a huge amount of influence in the EU, and that we do drive, particularly in the area of single-market policies. My hon. Friend makes the point that we have to ensure that we get value for money, however, and that is why I am so keen that we manage to achieve a freeze in the EU budget this year.

Gregg McClymont: There is great concern throughout the business community about the implications of the Prime Minister’s walk-out from the European summit. Will he reassure the House that the uncertainty caused by that decision will not impact upon real jobs in the real economy of the United Kingdom?

David Cameron: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, because we can say to international investors, to businesses looking at Britain, “You have all the advantages of the single market—access to Europe’s markets—but we are not in the eurozone. Of course, we are affected by what happens in the eurozone, but our interests are just over 2%, whereas countries in the eurozone with budget deficits like ours have interest rates more like 5%, 6%, 7%.”

Margot James: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the words this morning of Chancellor Merkel’s spokesperson on last week’s vote? He said that
	“this changes absolutely nothing of the fact that Britain is one of our closest partners and one of our most important allies and friends… We want to make the single market a joint success, and that is something for which we have Britain on our side… Britain thus remains a very important partner for Germany.”
	Does my right hon. Friend not share my surprise that if the German Chancellor can accept that it is perfectly possible to stand up for one’s national interest and be a good European, that fact should elude the Opposition?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That leads to something else, which is that the countries that are like-minded on single-market issues—Holland, Germany, Sweden, the Baltic states—want Britain to be there when we are discussing single-market issues. That is another reason I do not believe that this separate treaty and separate organisation will cut across the single market.

Kevin Brennan: For the sake of clarity, can the Prime Minister tell the House where the Deputy Prime Minister is and why he is not here for this extremely important statement?

David Cameron: The Deputy Prime Minister agreed to the negotiating strategy. I am not responsible for his whereabouts, but I am sure he is working extremely hard.

John Baron: The Prime Minister’s veto has rightly struck a chord with the nation. May I suggest that instead of this being the end of the affair, it should be the start of a process to recalibrate our relationship with the EU based on free trade and growth and not on political union and regulation, which has cost this country so much?

David Cameron: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. Our position is that we want to get the best out of Europe for Britain. That means a focus, yes, on the single market, but it is not purely about a focus on trade—it is about recognising that that market is not just open for our goods but that we have a say in setting the rules. That is absolutely key to our national interest.

Paul Blomfield: What will the Prime Minister say to those leaders of the manufacturing sector who believe that his actions have deeply undermined their interests? They include Ian Rodgers, the director of UK Steel, who said today that
	“we are going to become less relevant in political decision-making”.

David Cameron: I do not agree with that. A lot of these arguments were made when Britain did not join the euro. A number of organisations, media outlets and, indeed, political parties and political leaders said, “If you stay out of the euro, you’ll marginalise Britain and it’ll be bad for our economy.” That was not the case. They were wrong then, and I think they are wrong now.

Dan Byles: Most post-treaty analysis has focused on the use of the veto, but can the Prime Minister confirm that the detail of the fiscal union proposed by the rest of the European Union would, quite remarkably, render the Opposition party’s entire economic policy illegal?

David Cameron: That is a very good point. We know that the leader of the Labour party is committed to joining the euro, if he is Prime Minister for long enough. At the same time, if he supported this treaty—but frankly we have not heard today whether he is for it or against it—and joined this treaty he would make his own policy illegal and he would be fined by the European Commission for the policies that the shadow Chancellor, who I see is now not here either, has signed him up to.

Graham Stringer: rose— [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The House will want, without exception, I hope, to hear Mr Graham Stringer.

Graham Stringer: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	Europe would not be in the economic and political mess that it is in now if we had not had to wait nearly 40 years before a British Prime Minister came back and said that he or she had used the veto. Can the Prime Minister tell us how, and when, he is going to repatriate some of the powers that have been so carelessly given away?

David Cameron: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support. As I said, we have brought back the bail-out power. We have prevented Britain from joining this treaty without the safeguards. I believe there will be opportunities in the future. There are areas, particularly in terms of costly regulation, where Britain has paid a high price for European regulation, and we should use future opportunities to act on that.

Bob Russell: I bring some grandfatherly advice to the proceedings. I urge the Prime Minister to let the dust settle, keep calm and carry on carefully, but please to abandon the Carlos Tevez approach to Europe. Bridges need to be built, and the first bridge the Prime Minister can build is to get Tory MEPs to rejoin the group of mainstream European conservatives.

David Cameron: I am very grateful for the grandfatherly advice. I remember the advice that the hon. Gentleman used to give me when we both cycled in to the House of Commons many years ago, so I will take it carefully on board. I will also take away the Carlos Tevez reference and give it a bit of thought.

Karl Turner: It is becoming increasingly obvious to everyone that the Lib Dem partners in this coalition are completely pointless. As the Prime Minister does not know the whereabouts of his deputy, will he assure the House and Mrs Clegg that he will send out a search party to look for him?

David Cameron: Did the hon. Gentleman really wait one hour and 34 minutes for that? I am keen to hold on to the rebate and I think that his constituents might want a rebate as well.

Sam Gyimah: We are hearing from outside the House an answer that the Leader of the Opposition would not give on whether he would have signed the treaty last Thursday. His aides are saying that he would not have signed it. Will the Prime Minister press him further to give us an answer on whether he would have signed the treaty?

David Cameron: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for looking at Twitter or whatever else it is that the Leader of the Opposition now uses. I gather that it is possible for the Leader of the Opposition to come back on that. Perhaps he can confirm whether he would have signed the treaty. I am happy to give him a few more minutes if we get a bit of clarity.

Mr Speaker: I think that the sensible approach, in conformity with convention, is to stick to questions to and answers from the Prime Minister in this Chamber.

Bill Esterson: In the words of one business leader today,
	“Margaret Thatcher was a constant thorn in the side of European leaders, but she never vacated the negotiating table; I am anxious by the implications of what the prime minister has done.”
	When will the Prime Minister give business in this country the reassurance that it needs about the impact that his walking away will have on jobs and the economy?

David Cameron: I think that business does understand that we must be in the European Union for trade, growth and jobs, and that our membership of the single market is key. However, there is a lot of damaging regulation coming from Brussels and we need to stand up to that. When new treaties are suggested that involve huge fiscal changes and other changes in the European Union, it is right that Britain should seek safeguards. I am not hearing the same message from business that the hon. Gentleman is hearing.

Karen Bradley: We have heard much this afternoon about the number of people who are employed in financial services. More than 2,000 of those jobs are located in my constituency of Staffordshire Moorlands. Can the Prime Minister reassure those employees that the action that he took last week was in their interests and that it will safeguard their jobs and not put them at unnecessary risk?

David Cameron: I can certainly do that. My hon. Friend makes the important point that this is an industry that is based around the country and not just in London. However, the protections of the single market go far beyond the financial services industry.

Nia Griffith: The Prime Minister has likened his experience of EU negotiations to playing chess against 26 different people. Will he therefore tell us what attempts he has made to build alliances with countries that have similar views to the UK, which could have played with him rather than against him?

David Cameron: Year after year, Ministers have had to stand at this Dispatch Box and apologise as the EU budget has gone up by 3%, 4%, 5% or more, because it is decided by qualified majority voting. I put together a qualified majority bloc so that we could get a real-terms freeze in the budget. There was help from Germany, France, Sweden and Holland. That is exactly the sort of constructive role that we play.

Anne Main: I am pleased that we have a Chancellor who understands that we need to take tight control of the fiscal reins of this country and that we have a Prime Minister who understand the difficult questions that need to be asked. I am surprised that we have a Leader of the Opposition who does not understand any of that and who cannot make his mind up. May I ask, with all humility, when the great British public will have the chance to have a say on Europe?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support. I have given my answer on a referendum. I think that there is a role for referendums in a parliamentary democracy, but that comes at the moment when a Government or a Parliament proposes to give up power, rather than at other times.

Ronnie Campbell: How many countries outside the European Union have free trade agreements with it?

David Cameron: There is a growing number, with countries such as Mexico, and now we have the Korea free trade agreement. I am very keen to try to finalise the Japan free trade agreement. Huge effort should be made to have such treaties, because they are good for both sides.

Alun Cairns: May I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for his practical approach to the negotiations last week? May I also say that his practical, obvious negotiating style now seems to be supported by the Leader of the Opposition, whose aides are briefing the press that he would not have signed the agreement, in the same way that the Prime Minister did not?

David Cameron: Ah. Either the Leader of the Opposition has no control over his aides, who are randomly briefing the press about his position, or he failed to tell the House, in his minutes and minutes of speaking, that he would not have signed the treaty. If you would have signed it, you can say I made the wrong decision, but if you would not, you will have to accept that I made the right decision. You either have to have the courage of your convictions or give an answer.

Jonathan Ashworth: Will the Prime Minister confirm that his veto does nothing to strengthen financial services in the way that he would want? Now that he has adopted a position of isolation, does he think he is more or less likely to win those safeguards in the future?

David Cameron: The key safeguard that we did get was against a treaty without proper protections and safeguards for the single market. It was in Britain’s interest to do that, and that is what the hon. Gentleman needs to understand.

Simon Hughes: After last week’s isolation, can the Prime Minister confirm that he still agrees fully with the words of the coalition agreement that
	“Britain should play a leading role”
	and be
	“a positive participant in the European Union”,
	and that in that way we will help solve the economic crisis and bring growth and jobs to the United Kingdom?

David Cameron: I completely agree with that. We are members of the European Union, and that membership has not changed, nor have the treaties that govern the single market.

Alex Cunningham: We all know that an ill-prepared Prime Minister failed to build the alliances and friendships to ensure that Britain’s best interests were protected in Europe last week. What will he be doing on his days off, when the leaders of the other 26 EU nations are sitting around a table, working hard and discussing economics that affect countries both inside and outside the eurozone?

David Cameron: What I will be doing is sorting out the mess that the hon. Gentleman’s party left when it left office.

Chris Kelly: My right hon. Friend might be interested to hear that I have recently visited businesses in Dudley South that are now exporting to markets such as Mexico, Brazil and the far east. Given the decline of the European Union’s share of world GDP and world trade over the past decade, does he agree that we need to ensure that we have robust relationships with the rising powers in Asia and south America as much as with the declining powers in the EU?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right. What we want to have is the best of both worlds. We want to have the single market in Europe and use it to drive free trade deals with countries in south and central America and the far east, so that we maximise trade for Britain, Europe and the world.

Mark Lazarowicz: Is it not more likely than not that the 26 member states other than Britain will increasingly agree among themselves courses of action on financial services, the single market and other matters, and that even if Britain still has the right to oppose them in the full EU, it will not be able to stand out against 26 countries that have effectively agreed a position among themselves?

David Cameron: The new organisation outside the EU cannot draw up or implement agreements on financial services or other things that have an impact on the single market. Those things have to be done through the Single Market Council. Of course there will always be difficulties at that Council, where frankly my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has to fight Britain’s corner very hard, but the danger for us was allowing the treaty of the 17 to come into the EU without proper safeguards. That is why we behaved as we did.

Christopher Pincher: Is my right hon. Friend aware that François Hollande, the front-runner for the French presidency in next year’s elections, has said that if elected he will tear up the accord because it is not right for France? Does that not suggest that there are socialists who appreciate it when Britain stands up for herself? Sadly, they are not our socialists.

David Cameron: I do not want to get drawn into the French election campaign, because despite reports to the contrary I am still on extremely good terms with my friend Nicolas Sarkozy, as the Libya campaign proved. I will say one thing: at least the Opposition leader in France has told us what he thinks. I can see the Opposition Front Benchers tweeting, blogging and poking for all they are worth, but they still do not have a policy.

Gordon Banks: The Prime Minister has referred to today’s Financial Services Authority announcement, and I have to say that he has selective memory loss, because it was he who was calling for less and lighter-touch regulation of our financial services when he was in opposition.
	May I ask the Prime Minister why it was better to placate his Back Benchers than stay in the room, stand up and fight for British interests?

David Cameron: There are two points. First, the FSA mentions only three politicians, one of whom is the shadow Chancellor. On placating people, if the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back to last Wednesday, he will find that I was not particularly placating anybody with the moderate and reasonable requests I was making of the European Union. It was leadership on behalf of Britain, not any one part of it.

Martin Vickers: My right hon. Friend will be aware that he has the overwhelming support of my constituents from across the political spectrum. If we are to safeguard jobs and expand the economy, we must be equally robust in all our EU negotiations. He will know that the common fisheries policy adversely affects my constituency. Will he assure my constituents that his colleagues will follow his lead when negotiating on that matter?

David Cameron: I know how important the cod issue is to my hon. Friend’s constituents and people right across that region. I will ensure that Ministers in the coalition Government stand up for our fishermen.

Gavin Shuker: The Prime Minister has stated that he wanted to deal at the level of 27 nations. Why, then, did he end up having bilateral discussions with just three?

David Cameron: The point is that it is quite clear that when it came to the issue of wanting a change to the treaty—[Hon. Members: “Answer!”] I am answering the question very directly. It was clear that the Germans and the French were leading the charge on wanting a change to the treaty, so it was very important to have discussions with them, but I also had discussions with the Dutch, the Swedish, the Irish and many others.

Nadhim Zahawi: May I add my support to the Prime Minister and to the coalition Government for taking a tough decision under difficult circumstances? Will he confirm that over and above our contribution to the EU, we buy more from Europe than we export to it? The difference is about £100 billion in product, which the eurozone will need at the moment to help it out of its crisis.

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have a large trade deficit with Europe, apart from in one area: financial services. Frankly, I wish our economy was more rebalanced. We are aiming to rebalance it, but it is important in the meantime that we recognise realities.

William Bain: Successful completion of the single market could add 7% to UK gross domestic product. After Thursday’s summit and the Prime Minister’s policy of isolation, does he believe that he has more or fewer allies in Europe for something that is vital to our national interest?

David Cameron: We have huge amounts of allies and support for action on the single market. If the hon. Gentleman looks at what has happened in the past 18 months, he will see that there have been more positive steps taken by the European Commission on the single market than there have been for the past 10 yeas or more. If we look at what is happening on the services directive, energy, small business, we see that the penny has finally dropped that Europe has a role, but it needs to be about deregulation. That is no coincidence. One reason is that of the 27 countries sitting around the table, only four are run by socialists.

Therese Coffey: Many jobs in Suffolk rely on a fair, level playing field in the single market. If last Friday morning was not the time to stand up for British interests, when is?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right. Institutional arrangements and treaty arrangements in the EU must be agreed by unanimity. If anyone is not content with what is being put forward, it is perfectly acceptable to do what I did and say, “I am not happy to go ahead with the treaty without these safeguards.”

Toby Perkins: The Prime Minister has heard from Members on both sides of the House about the worries of manufacturing industry. Will he say specifically which exporting firms think that his actions last week will make exports easier rather than harder—which ones have come out and supported his move?

David Cameron: Frankly, I have found huge support from the business community for what I have said—and that spans a huge number of different industries. Many industries are asking what we will do about the problem of excessive regulation. That should be dealt with through the single market, which we will continue to do.

Robert Buckland: As someone who has long advocated a positive role for Britain in Europe, may I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision on Friday as the right one for this country? Will he further commit the Government to carry on engaging strongly with our European partners to ensure more jobs and growth in the single market?

David Cameron: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. I have spoken to a number of people over the last few days, in my party and others, who have a long history of supporting Britain’s membership of the EU and who think that what I did was right. Of course we need to engage, and in terms of the single market we need to make that engagement even more powerful in the weeks and months ahead. But it was right, on this occasion, to say no to this treaty.

Ian Austin: There is one member of the Government who does not seem to share his colleagues’ antipathy for all things European, but after sitting through and paying for a dinner at which guests toasted the Third Reich and chanted “Hitler, Hitler, Hitler”—[ Interruption. ] Members on the other side of the House may not take this seriously, but why has the Prime Minister not sacked—

Mr Speaker: Order. I simply say—[ Interruption. ] Order. I am perfectly capable of handling these matters myself. If I wanted help, I certainly would not ask Back Benchers of any party, or anybody else for that matter.
	I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that he asked his question earlier, and it was perfectly in order for him to do so, but we are here discussing the European summit and the Prime Minister’s statement on it. The hon. Gentleman is an ingenious fellow—

Ian Austin: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am being helpful to the hon. Gentleman. I have known him since we were at university together 29 years ago, and I have probably forgotten more about him than he knew in the first place. I am being kind to him and he has said enough for today. He can use other methods to get his point across, and I am sure that he will.

Stephen Mosley: It is only the tough action taken by my right hon. Friend’s Government to tackle our own deficit that has made us a safe haven in Europe and given us a choice last week. Is it not the case that if we had followed the economic policies advocated by the Opposition, it would not be the eurozone asking us for help, but us going to beg Europe to bail us out?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. At the last election, British and Greek interest rates were pretty much equivalent at about 4.5% and we had similar sized deficits. What has happened since is a huge increase in Greek interest rates and a decline in British interest rates, partly because we have a plan—and have shown that we have a plan—to deal with our debts and our deficit.

Esther McVey: The Populus poll reported today shows that only 14% of the public opposed the Prime Minister’s actions. Does that not show that Members on this side of the House are totally in touch with public opinion and the Opposition are not?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. What I also noticed from that poll, which says that more than 50% support what we have done and—as she says—14% are against, is that the leader of the Labour party does have a constituency of opinion among the people who have not made up their minds.

David Morris: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the strength he has shown in leading this country? The tabloid press says that £40 billion would have gone over to Europe, or £642 for every man, woman and child in this country. I thank the Prime Minister for stopping that happening, and will he point out to the Leader of the Opposition—who now says that he would not have signed the treaty—that instead of being cast adrift on the waves of the Atlantic, we are now the financial lifeboat of Europe?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. The point about the budget is important because, as a net contributor, every extra percentage
	point of budget increase does result in a big transfer from Britain to Brussels, so it is important that we have managed to achieve a freeze.

Simon Kirby: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on his strong and decisive leadership and on doing not only what is best for Britain, but best for the 2,000 of my constituents who work in financial services?

David Cameron: I thank my hon. Friend, who has made a number of sacrifices on my behalf over the last 18 months, one of which is waiting to the very last in this marathon question session. I am delighted that he believes that we have done the right thing for Britain and for Brighton, and I praise him for his very hard work in his constituency.

Mr Speaker: I am extremely grateful to the Prime Minister and other colleagues, as 101 Back Benchers had the opportunity to question the Prime Minister in the 88 minutes of exclusively Back Bench time on this statement. I thank colleagues for their co-operation.

Royal Bank of Scotland (FSA Report)

Mark Hoban: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
	Today the Financial Services Authority published its report on the failures that led to the near collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland. It is a thoroughly detailed report, listing a catalogue of management and regulatory failures that almost felled one of the world’s largest banks. Given the billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money that was needed to bail out the bank, not once, but twice, and for a total sum of £45 billion, it is right that taxpayers are told the full story.
	It is fair to say that the report makes for depressing reading. For the shadow Chancellor, it is as damning as it is depressing. The report lays bare the gross failures of the regulatory regime that was devised and driven by the shadow Chancellor and his party.
	It is now well known that the tripartite system set up by the previous Government failed spectacularly in its mission to maintain stability. The decision to divide responsibility for assessing systemic financial risks between three institutions meant that in reality no one took responsibility. As the report laments, the FSA was solely responsible for the entire range of financial regulation issues, from the prudential soundness of major systemically important banks, to the conduct of some 25,000 financial intermediaries.
	The failure of regulatory culture was equally significant as the failure of institutional design. The report says:
	“What was wrong in the case of RBS was the FSA’s overall approach to prudential supervision, rather than the execution of this approach in relation to RBS.”
	More than that, the report says that it was an approach that
	“responded to political pressures for a ‘light touch’ regulatory regime.”
	The report singles out the shadow Chancellor as one of the three senior Labour politicians who were responsible for this “sustained” pressure. It quotes his first speech as City Minister in which he said
	“nothing should be done to put at risk a light-touch, risk-based regulatory regime.”
	It was political dogma at the cost of prudential regulation, and it left us hamstrung with a complacent regulator, powerless against the risks in the financial system. It meant that the FSA failed sufficiently to challenge RBS management over its decisions, and was over-reliant on the firm’s own assessment of its position. Rather than exercising judgment and foresight, the FSA adopted a tick-box and reactive approach to regulation.
	Left to its own devices, without proper regulatory oversight, RBS got away with some of the most shocking decisions taken by any bank in the years and months leading to the crisis in late 2008. Poor judgment was fostered by a style of management and governance that promoted a culture of aggressive risk-taking over prudence. That was most clearly demonstrated by RBS’s decision to grow its investment bank by aggressively expanding its structured credit and leveraged finance activities. That build-up of risk was compounded by RBS’s relentless pursuit and purchase of ABN AMRO. The current chairman of RBS said that the acquisition was
	“the wrong price, the wrong way to pay, at the wrong time and the wrong deal.”
	As the House is aware, it was the losses in the RBS investment banking arm that crippled the entire bank. As the credit trading losses mounted, the bank’s excessive reliance on short-term wholesale funding and its weak capital position were brutally exposed, and led to its near collapse.
	The British economy is still recovering from the near collapse of RBS and the wider financial system just three years ago. Recovering from that crisis is this Government’s No.1 priority. We simply cannot afford a repeat of it, which is why we have embarked on fundamental reform of our regulatory system. As the House is aware, the Government are legislating fundamentally to reform the failed tripartite system. We are establishing a permanent financial policy committee inside the Bank of England. Its job will be to monitor overall risks in the financial system, identify bubbles as they develop, spot dangerous interconnections and stop excessive levels of leverage before it is too late. It is exactly the kind of judgment and foresight that we needed in the years preceding the last crisis.
	We are also abolishing the Financial Services Authority in its current form, and creating a new Prudential Regulation Authority with a focus on micro-prudential regulation. Prudential regulation of banks will go back to where it belongs, under the auspices of the central bank, as a subsidiary of the Bank of England, bringing micro and macro-regulation under one roof.
	The PRA will be a focused, expert regulator. Whereas the FSA was responsible for thousands of financial services firms, the PRA will focus exclusively on the prudential regulation of deposit-takers, insurers and investment banks. And when regulating banks, it will have the single statutory objective of promoting safety and soundness. Responsibility for the protection of consumers and the conduct of financial services firms will transfer to the new Financial Conduct Authority, leaving the PRA free to focus first and foremost on stability.
	We are also working closely with the FSA and the Bank of England to ensure that the new PRA has the powers that it needs to ensure that banks do not take excessive risks and that directors who act improperly face appropriate penalties. We will consider carefully the further recommendations made in the report, particularly Lord Turner’s suggestion that it should be made easier for action to be brought against the directors of failed banks.
	I share the frustration of many Members that it has not been possible to bring action against those responsible for the failures at RBS, but strengthening legal powers in this area would raise some complex issues, and we will want to reflect carefully and listen to a range of views before deciding on any action.
	The report into the failure of RBS fully complements our analysis of the faults of the previous regime and supports our wider reforms to the banking system. We will respond to the recommendations of the Independent Commission on Banking next Monday. We have already said, though, that we support in principle not only a ring fence around better-capitalised high street banks to protect them against investment banking losses but, when things go wrong, a bail-in of private investors, not a bail-out by taxpayers. Together with recovery and resolution plans, that means that we are working to ensure that banks can fail in an orderly fashion without any recourse to taxpayers’ money.
	We will not make the same mistakes as the previous Government but will ensure that we have a system of regulation that secures our financial stability while protecting our competitiveness, and we have already made substantial progress in that ambition. I welcome the action already taken by the FSA to strengthen its supervisory capacity, to become a more intensive and intrusive regulator and to improve its ability to ensure that banks are well governed.
	We continue to lead the international debate to impose higher capital requirements and tougher funding standards on banks across the globe, and we will resist any attempt to unpick Basel III in Europe. With the world focused on the strength of bank balance sheets, this is not the time to pander to vested interests. We will ensure that Basel III is implemented in full and that we can go further to impose higher capital standards where necessary to meet risks unique to our sector.
	We know that the financial sector will continue to be a critical part of our economy and our recovery, and we are committed to supporting the sector and protecting the open and competitive markets that have allowed the sector to flourish in the UK, but that success cannot come at a cost to the wider economy. That means getting the structure and substance of regulation right and correcting the mistakes of the previous Government.
	Today’s report reminds us of the gross failures of the previous regime and the previous Government. This Government will not repeat those mistakes. We will reform the regime to preserve the innovation that fuels the sector’s success without putting the wider economy at risk and to build a successful but stable financial services sector. I commend this statement to the House.

Christopher Leslie: The report confirms that there was institutionalised dysfunction at the heart of the Royal Bank of Scotland and confirms what we all know—that there was a collective failure of regulation not just in Britain but around the world, and that there were failures not just of one individual, institution, political party or Government but failures that allowed irresponsible bankers to take excessive risks and cause a global financial crisis.
	Labour Members have accepted our responsibilities, and as my right hon. Gentleman the shadow Chancellor said, for the part that the previous Government played in that global regulatory failure, we are deeply sorry. Acknowledging our part in those global failings is the right approach to take, so let me ask the Minister: does he accept that the Conservatives got it wrong too? During the 2007 debates on Northern Rock, he beseeched the Treasury
	“to counter the pressure for greater regulation”,
	and talked of
	“the strength of our regulatory regime”
	and how it was
	“vital that this crisis does not erode that standing”.—[Official Report, 12 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 391.]
	It would be unparliamentary to call the Minister a hypocrite but perhaps he needs some medical advice about his selective amnesia. Let us have some contrition from the Conservative party, which never once called for more regulation or criticised the FSA for not having enough powers. In fact, it argued precisely the opposite. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is sitting on the Front Bench, complained constantly of burdensome and complex regulations.
	The FSA is clear that there was a collective failure, but there was also clarity about how the regulator was at fault. Specifically, the report says that the monitoring of RBS’s capital position was “reactive”, and that “supervision of liquidity” was a “low priority”. The FSA did not scrutinise the trading book or loan impairments adequately, and the takeover of ABN AMRO was not questioned sufficiently. Can the Minister say, first, whether the FSA had the co-operation of all former RBS directors, and whether they were all interviewed? His statement was somewhat vague about action against those responsible—he says that he will reflect carefully. Can we take it then, reading between the lines of his statement, that the Government will not pursue action to disqualify former RBS directors from sitting on other company boards?
	Secondly, the Minister says that he will “consider” tough action to ensure that bankers who jeopardise the solvency of our retail banks cannot escape responsibility. There should be a new strict liability requirement specifically for banking directors. If the Minister does not amend the draft Financial Services Bill to achieve that, we will table amendments to that effect. The report suggests that future bank takeovers should require formal approval by the regulator, which was not required when RBS took over ABN AMRO. That is sensible, so can the Minister say whether he will amend the draft Bill accordingly?
	Thirdly, will the Government take steps to strengthen the corporate governance of large public companies, including banks? Regulators have to do a better job, but shareholders also need to be able to exert their authority. Fourthly, will the Minister agree to implement the legislation already approved in law to publish the pay deals of everyone working in the banking sector earning more than £l million? The Government have dragged their feet on this issue. A simple signature to a statutory instrument is all that is needed. Surely it is important to have transparency and accountability for all the high earners in the banks, not just the richest eight in each bank, as he has conceded so far.
	Fifthly, the report highlights a culture of incentive fees for City advisers, whose rewards are greatest if large takeovers are completed. The report recommends ending that bias in the advisory fee structure. Why did the Minister ignore that recommendation in his statement? Does he agree that the proposal would make good sense? The FSA and the Government did not see the financial crisis coming, but neither did the Bank of England. Is the Minister certain that putting all the new regulatory powers in the hands of the Bank will work? Is there a risk that the accountability of the Bank of England—an important point—is substandard in his current proposals? Will he accept the suggestions from the Select Committee on the Treasury and others that those safeguards need to be significantly enhanced?
	We of course support moves to enhance prudential regulation, but there is always a danger of fighting the last battle, especially when there could be a eurozone credit crunch just around the corner, so is the Minister not taking his eye off the ball? Will he acknowledge that the new European supervisory structures are incredibly powerful and that, by mishandling negotiations in Europe so badly, the Government have jeopardised our ability to influence and steer those European regulations, which can overrule the tougher capital buffers for our banks, as suggested by the FSA here in Britain?
	The regulators did not do enough, and we have to learn lessons. However, ultimate culpability rests on the shoulders of the bankers involved. It is astonishing that deeply irresponsible decisions by those bankers should have forced a £45 billion bail-out, and yet no enforcement action is brought and nobody is punished. It is about time that this Government stopped pandering to the big banks and took action to speed up banking reform and rein in the excessive bonus culture.

Mark Hoban: The approach taken by the hon. Gentleman, who seeks to try to blame everybody for the crisis, overlooks the key role that the shadow Chancellor—who is not in his place today—played in the design of the regulatory system that led to the problems we saw at RBS. That design—driven by the shadow Chancellor, who took great credit for it—meant that no backstops were in place when RBS took those decisions.
	The other point that the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind is that only three politicians are named in the report as having put pressure on the FSA to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime. One was Tony Blair, one was the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), and the third one—the person who is missing from the Opposition Front Bench today—is the shadow Chancellor, the person who in his first speech as City Minister called on the FSA to adopt a light-touch regulatory regime, a regime that, when confronted with the challenge of RBS, turned from a light touch to a soft touch. It is, of course, the taxpayer who has picked up the bill for the fundamental flaws in Labour’s regulatory regime.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about disqualification of RBS directors. It is a pity that the previous Government did not think about that issue in the aftermath of the financial crisis. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has referred the report to counsel to see whether it is possible to disqualify the directors of RBS.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about approval for acquisition. We will look carefully at the proposal Lord Turner made, but the reality is that the FSA had powers to intervene, but chose not to use them—partly as a consequence of the light-touch regime foisted on them by the previous Government.
	When the hon. Gentleman talks about bonuses, let us not forget that it was under the previous Government that bonuses could be paid out in cash and taken straight away. Under the regime in place now, bonuses are deferred, paid out in shares and can be clawed back. Let us not forget that the moment that it was possible to exercise the maximum leverage on Sir Fred Goodwin—the banker Labour knighted—was the moment when it gave away his pension scheme. So I will take no lessons from the Labour party on the way in which we should deal with the problems of RBS.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the Bank of England and seemed to question whether it was able to take on the additional responsibilities. I thought he was moving away from his party’s position of supporting the package of reforms that we have put forward. Let me remind him that it was the Bank of England that identified the problem of the mispricing of risk in the financial markets. The problem was that the regulatory structure it had to deal with meant that the Bank did not have the power to tackle the problem—nor, indeed, did the FSA. What we
	are faced with is a problem of dealing with the regulatory regime left to us by the previous Government. They chose not to make these reforms when they were in government; we are taking action now to ensure that we have the right regime in place to tackle those risks and ensure that we have a stable, but successful, financial services sector.

Andrew Tyrie: Powerful institutions do not leap forward to explain themselves when they make mistakes, and neither did the FSA. The fact is that the almost 500 pages of this report would never have been written had it not been for the unremitting pressure from the Treasury Select Committee. I would like to thank my colleagues on that Committee for helping me to secure this report from the FSA. Furthermore, to make sure that the report was of adequate quality, we took the unprecedented step of sending our own specialist Committee advisers into the FSA with full powers to examine papers and personnel in order to check that the papers underlying the compilation of this report were fairly reflected in it.
	Is it not now crucial that the new regulators—the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority—are subjected in future to far more vigorous parliamentary scrutiny than the FSA has been in the past? Will the Government commit in the draft legislation to secure a much higher level of parliamentary scrutiny of these powerful quangos than we have had hitherto?

Mark Hoban: I, too, commend the work of my hon. Friend and his Select Committee, along with the work done by Bill Knight and Sir David Walker in scrutinising the FSA’s report and making consequent improvements to it. One of the challenges we face is, as my hon. Friend said, to ensure that there is proper scrutiny. He commented on the fact that it took the pressure of his Committee to produce this report. The reality is that the existing powers in section 14 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to require a report to be produced where there is regulatory failure have never been exercised. One measure we have put in place in the Bill is to enable such reports to be produced on a more regular basis—not at a Minister’s request but in response to objective triggers to ensure that reports are published in a timely fashion so that we can learn the lessons from past mistakes. I think that is a helpful way of enabling Parliament to hold the regulators to account. We look forward shortly to responding not just to my hon. Friend’s Select Committee report, but to that of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee.

John Mann: Is the position of Hector Sants at the Bank of England still credible following the report, and does the Minister agree that it would not be tenable for anyone connected with the FSA to replace Sir Mervyn King as the next Governor of the Bank of England?

Mark Hoban: As the hon. Gentleman will know, RBS was regulated by the retail division of the FSA, while Hector Sants was managing director of the wholesale division. He took charge of the FSA about three months before the ABN AMRO acquisition, and one of the things on which he should be commended is the way in which he has led its implementation of a more intrusive
	and intense programme of supervision. I think that that has yielded dividends during the last two or three years, and that it is an important part of his record that we should recognise.

David Ruffley: The Government’s proposed new regime will be judgment-based, not rule-based, and will therefore require banking supervisors of much higher quality than we have seen hitherto. What steps will the Financial Secretary take to ensure that such people are in place under the new regime?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend is right to recognise that the quality of supervision needs to be higher than it was in the pre-crisis days. The need for much more engagement by better qualified banking supervisors is a priority not just for the FSA but for the Bank of England, which will be introducing measures for precisely that purpose.

Stewart Hosie: The Minister said that the FSA had failed to challenge the RBS management sufficiently over its decisions. That is a masterful understatement. In October 2007 the FSA had precisely four and a half staff in RBS: half a manager and four team members. It was possibly the biggest bank in the world, it was systemically important, and its asset base was bigger than the GDP of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister guarantee that, irrespective of the future shape of banking and regulation, the RBS’s successors—the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority—will always have enough of the right people in such systemically important banks, so that we never encounter such a situation again?

Mark Hoban: That is an important question. I referred earlier to the pressure under which Tony Blair put the FSA to adopt a proportionate regulatory regime. One of the examples put to the then Prime Minister about the light-touch quality of the regime was the fact that there were only six people supervising HSBC, and even fewer have been supervising RBS. I understand that there has been almost a fourfold increase in the number of RBS supervisors, and I think that that is a much better approach. We must ensure that there is intrusive, intensive supervision, and that requires not just more resources, but a higher quality of resources.

Matthew Hancock: I warmly welcome the report. I think that the proposal to debar directors from high office in future should be implemented so that we can ensure that rewards are not received for failure at the top, but will the Minister also consider the proposal to debar others mentioned in the report who were culpable?

Mark Hoban: I think that we should give careful consideration to the idea of debarring people who have been incompetent and mismanaged their leadership of institutions. That applies to the directors of those institutions, but it may also apply to the politicians who designed the system in the first place.

Frank Dobson: Let me begin by declaring an interest: my wife and I have both current and deposit accounts with the Royal Bank of Scotland. As one who was always in favour of tougher regulation of banks, I must also confess that
	I do not recall encountering an organisation before the collapse which could be described as “Tories for tougher banking regulation”.
	Will the Minister confirm that the failures extend beyond the area that he has cover? Will he confirm that the auditor, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu—which received substantial fees—did not seem to notice that there was anything wrong, and that the benighted rating agencies, which keep telling us what should be happening now, gave triple A ratings to both RBS and ABN AMRO right up to the day on which the balloon burst?

Mark Hoban: The right hon. Gentleman makes some important points, and clearly a number of institutions involved with RBS and the regulatory system more widely should bear responsibility for what happened, but let us be absolutely clear that the principal responsibility for the failure of RBS lies with its management.

Michael Crockart: I should, first, declare that the global headquarters of RBS is in Gogarburn in my constituency. Today’s report apportions blame for the RBS demise on previous RBS management, insufficient challenge by the FSA and Labour’s light-touch, lip-service regulations; this Government are now dealing with those. Will the Minister join me in recognising that one group not blamed was the tens of thousands of ordinary employees of the bank, who have continued to work in an exemplary way, despite more than 27,000 redundancies and a slump in the bank’s fortunes and share price, which was previously a major element of their benefits package? Does he agree that today’s report is no reflection on them?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Responsibility clearly rests with the leadership of RBS, not with those working in the bank’s branches, those working at its insurance company and others, who did their job properly and to the highest standards. It is important to recognise that, having identified regulatory issues to address, his party and my party came together in a coalition Government committed to regulatory reform. The Labour party was wedded to the status quo and to the regulatory regime that allowed this to happen unchecked. That party should take its full responsibility, just as we should recognise the excellent work that people at RBS did.

Pat McFadden: The report makes it clear that the primary responsibility for the collapse of RBS lies with the firm. The shadow Minister was big enough to say what he did about past regulation, and the Minister’s anger would be more credible if he and his party had not continually called for lighter regulation. The Minister had said:
	“Effective light-touch, risk-based…regulation is in the interests of the sector globally, and the Government need to send that message more strongly to the US Administration and Congress”.—[Official Report, 28 November 2006; Vol. 453, c. 995.]
	The Chancellor had said:
	“I fear that much of this regulation has been burdensome, complex and makes cross-border market penetration more difficult.”
	If people are going to admit culpability on regulation, the truth is that those on both sides of the House need to look in the mirror. Is that not the case?

Mark Hoban: It was my party, through the work done by Lord Sassoon, that examined the regulatory system set up by the previous Government, identified some of the challenges and determined that the best thing to do was to reform that system. We have recognised the challenges and the failings of the previous regulatory system, and proposed measures to improve it, and to ensure that it serves consumers and ensures a stable, successful financial services business.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: We have quite a few Members to get in, so please could we have brief questions and answers?

Tony Baldry: The shadow Minister said that the regulation did not work and the regulator did not do anything sufficiently. Surely the reason for that was because the regulator was put under sustained and unacceptable political pressure by two former Prime Ministers and by the current shadow Chancellor. Will my hon. Friend confirm to the House that this Government, and the Treasury under the stewardship of this Chancellor, would not put such pressure on regulators and that the constitutional convention as to how a Government should work with regulators will be properly observed?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have made it clear that we want to give the new regulatory organisations that independence, power, authority, discretion and judgment to get on with their job, so that we ensure that we tackle issues that need to be tackled and ensure that there is tough regulation where that is needed. For example, we are going to introduce powers for the Financial Conduct Authority to ban particular products—a power that has not been available so far. We are prepared to take those tough decisions and let the regulators get on with their job.

Mark Lazarowicz: One of the features of the RBS takeover of ABN AMRO was that lots of people warned against it at the time, and not just with hindsight—many people in the financial services and elsewhere warned of severe consequences. Was the decision to go ahead with that takeover about not just the role of Sir Fred Goodwin, but the fact that those who were meant to prevent him from doing such things did not do so? Was this not only about a question of regulation, but about a culture of takeover, acquisition, internationalisation and over-ambition which was at the heart of the problems of RBS and other places? What will the Minister’s proposals do to prevent that kind of attitude from affecting future managements and future banks when the current financial crises have passed?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes some important points. It is important that shareholders play a more active and engaged role in businesses in which they have a holding. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has commissioned John Kay to conduct a review of long-term interest in business and business investment. We need to strengthen corporate governance in boards, as they clearly were not sufficiently robust in their challenge to executives. One of the things that has happened in the FSA is that a
	much more robust approach is being taken to understanding and examining people who want to hold positions of significant influence in our major banks, including those who want to become board members. That is a good way not only of raising the quality of people in the boardroom, but of ensuring that they are robust enough to stand up against a dominant and aggressive chief executive officer.

Stephen Barclay: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the rules allow enforcement action against incompetence? The point being missed by Labour Members is that there are more than 6,000 pages of FSA rules. There is no shortage of rules, but they do not allow enforcement against incompetence; they allow it only against dishonesty. That is what has fettered the hand of the FSA and what angers my constituents, who are aggrieved that individual directors of RBS have not faced sanction.

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point and he speaks with some experience, having worked with the FSA. We need to look carefully at the fit and proper person test for people becoming registered with the FSA to ensure that they are good quality, and can do the job properly and competently.

William McCrea: I welcome the Minister’s statement. It is right and proper that we review past failures and learn from them, but how can we use the current situation to get the banks to lend to the hard-pressed small and medium-sized businesses crying out for finance they urgently need, especially in Northern Ireland, where credit is particularly squeezed?

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the credit situation in Northern Ireland, and I know that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) pays close attention to it. We need to ensure that banks are sufficiently well capitalised to enable them to lend to businesses. One of the things that the hon. Gentleman may have noticed from last week’s report from the European Banking Authority is that no UK banks required additional capital, because they are already well capitalised and should be in a position to lend, as was demonstrated by the third quarter Project Merlin figures.

Nadhim Zahawi: This report is a damning indictment of the decisions taken by the previous Government, so it is regrettable that the shadow Chancellor could not be here to apologise in person to the House and to the country. Does the Minister agree that the something-for-nothing culture allowed to fester under the previous Government is something that this Government will not allow and that they will examine how to shift the dynamic in boards in systemically important businesses so that non-execs are able to challenge powerful CEOs and hold them to account?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point, because there was a culture, as documented in the report, that meant that directors on the board of RBS did not challenge the CEO sufficiently robustly. That needs to change. We also need to ensure that the incentive
	arrangements for directors are robust. Under the previous regime, bonuses could be paid out in cash straight away. Over the past couple of years, tougher rules have been put in place to defer bonuses, to make sure that they are paid in shares and to claw back bonuses where there has been failure. That is a tough regime in place and it should make sure that the incentives of directors are in line with those of shareholders.

Mark Durkan: What are the issues inhibiting the Minister from making a clear commitment to strengthen legal powers so that action can be brought against directors of failed banks?

Mark Hoban: I understand the frustration expressed in the hon. Gentleman’s question. We need to look carefully at the proposals in Lord Turner’s report and we will have the opportunity to legislate in the Financial Services Bill, if appropriate, but the hon. Gentleman would not want me to engage in a knee-jerk response to a report that was only published first thing this morning. I want to ensure that we have the right measures in place, whether through company law or regulation, to ensure that we have good-quality people running such organisations.

David Mowat: The report makes it clear that had the Basel III legislation been in place, the AMRO transaction could not have happened. Will the Minister confirm that it remains his intention to implement Basel III as soon as possible and ideally before 2019?

Mark Hoban: It is our commitment to implement Basel III. We want to ensure that it is implemented consistently across the whole of Europe in capital requirements directive IV and we are pushing for member states to have the freedom to go further and raise capital standards when they believe it is in their interests to do so. We want to see tougher regulation of banks and that requires better and more capital and better and more liquidity.

David Morris: The FSA’s report mentions three Ministers in the previous Government who applied sustained political pressure to give a light touch, shall we say, to the regulation. Can my hon. Friend tell me who they were?

Mark Hoban: It is interesting, is it not? It is not often that we see particular Ministers highlighted in reports published by independent bodies. The three who are mentioned are Tony Blair, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and the shadow Chancellor. The shadow Chancellor took great pride in taking credit for the design of the regulatory structure, which failed, and he compounded those mistakes in the design of the structure by putting pressure on the FSA to go for a light-touch regime. The taxpayer has picked up the consequences of the failure to design that structure correctly and of the inappropriate pressure to have a light-touch regime when it came to the regulation of RBS and others. The taxpayer is paying the cost and the Opposition should be apologising for that.

Richard Fuller: Although the report includes useful forward-looking recommendations, its review of the actions of executives, directors, regulators
	and Ministers that led to the crisis amounts to 487 pages of “Oops!” That includes the laughable statement on page 352 that
	“deterrence will most effectively be achieved by bringing home to such individuals the consequences of their actions.”
	Does the Minister agree that deterrence would be more effectively achieved by those people hearing the clunk of the prison door and the turning of the key?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend is right to say that many taxpayers up and down the country who have seen £45 billion poured into RBS want to know why action has not been taken against its directors. Today’s report is an attempt to address those issues. It recognises that there are some problems with the sanctions available to the FSA and in the Companies Acts, and we are committed to reviewing them and seeing which tougher sanctions can be put in place to deal with directors who let down the businesses they work for and the customers they serve.

Durban Climate Change Conference

Christopher Huhne: With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the outcomes of the United Nations climate change conference in Durban, which concluded only yesterday. I was present for the last week and a bit of the conference, along with my colleague the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), who has responsibility for climate change.
	After the disappointment of Copenhagen, last year’s Cancun conference showed that the UN climate process was back on track. The Durban conference was designed to build on that outcome and our aims were therefore higher. At our most optimistic, we hoped to agree a road map to a new global legally binding agreement to replace or supplement the Kyoto protocol. Unlike Kyoto, it would incorporate emissions targets for all countries other than the poorest and least developed. It would be accompanied by agreement to a second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol from 2013. We also aimed to encourage countries to strengthen their voluntary pledges to reduce emissions in the years before any new agreement entered into force and we hoped to establish the green climate fund.
	I am pleased to say that, following two weeks of intense negotiations, we achieved each of those key aims. The talks resulted in the adoption of the Durban platform, a road map to a global legal agreement applicable to all parties. Negotiations for the new agreement, which will begin early in 2012, are to conclude as early as possible and not later than 2015 and the commitments in the new agreement will take effect from 2020.
	The conference explicitly recognised the global gap between countries’ existing emissions reduction pledges to 2020 and the global goal of limiting average temperature increases to below 2° above pre-industrial levels. It launched a work programme for ratcheting up ambition, a process that will be reinforced by a forthcoming review of the scientific evidence.
	The conference also agreed to adopt, next year, a second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol. Many details remain to be worked out over the coming months, including specific emissions reduction targets, the length of the commitment period and a process for dealing with surplus emissions allowances, but the headline message is clear: the Kyoto architecture—the rules and legal framework for managing emissions—has been preserved and can be built on in the future.
	The conference also resolved to establish the green climate fund to support policies and activities in developing countries. The UK is one of the few countries to have pledged climate finance beyond the initial fast-start period, and we will make an announcement on the green climate fund once its design is completed.
	The conference also resolved to establish a work programme to consider sources of long-term finance for developing countries with the aim of mobilising at least $100 billion a year by 2020. Progress was made on several other parts of the international climate regime, including reporting guidelines for developed and developing countries; the creation of the adaptation committee, which will provide advice and ensure coherent action on adaptation; the establishment in 2012 of the technology
	executive committee to facilitate the development of low-carbon technologies; further details of the framework for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation; and a process for establishing new market-based mechanisms to deliver effective reductions in emissions at least cost.
	As well as the substantial diplomatic and technical outcomes I have outlined, the Durban conference saw a highly significant political realignment. More than 120 countries formed a coalition of high ambition in support of a road map to a global legally binding deal. Many African and Latin American states, the group of least developed countries and the Alliance of Small Island States joined the EU to argue for the road map to a new agreement. That realignment has laid a firm political foundation, grounded in common interest, on which we can build future achievements.
	I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying a sincere tribute to the British team of negotiators. Drawn from across government and supported by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its posts, ours was one of the smallest of the G8 countries’ delegations, but what it lacked in quantity it made up for in quality. Its members played a key role in many of the detailed negotiating groups, sometimes on behalf of the entire European Union. The UK operated within and through the EU delegation, co-operating closely with representatives of other member states and the European Commission. By working together with our European partners, we were able to deliver more effectively for the British national interest and for our shared ambitions.
	In conclusion, the Durban conference represents a significant step forward. It has re-established the principle that climate change should be tackled through international law, not through national voluntarism. It has persuaded the major emerging economies to acknowledge, for the first time, that their emissions commitments will have to be legally bound. It has encouraged all countries, also for the first time, to admit that their current climate policies must be strengthened and it has established the green climate fund to support the poorest countries in tackling and responding to climate change. It has also preserved the invaluable legal framework of the Kyoto protocol while at the same time opening the path to a new, more comprehensive and more ambitious global agreement. It was a clear success for international co-operation.
	We still have much to do. Durban alone will not limit global warming to 2° above pre-industrial levels, but we have taken a clear and vital step towards our goal. I commend the statement to the House.

Caroline Flint: I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement and join him in paying tribute to the British team of negotiators. Whatever our differences with the Government over their handling and delivery of policies at home, there is consensus across the House that the only way we will tackle climate change is by getting all countries signed up to a legally binding framework to cut their carbon emissions. In that vein, the progress made at Durban is to be applauded.
	First, I welcome the recognition in the Durban agreement of the emissions gap—the difference between the action that countries have committed to and the action we
	need to take to prevent dangerous climate change. The gap is too large and I hope that the Secretary of State will say a little more about how the UK will be leading efforts to narrow it.
	Secondly, I welcome the fact that Durban has re-established the principle that climate change must be tackled through a framework of international law that incorporates both developed and developing countries. It is undeniable that developed countries bear responsibility for significant historical emissions and, in the light of that, I welcome a second commitment period for the European Union to the Kyoto protocol. However, it is equally true, given the rate at which many developing countries’ economies and emissions are growing, that any meaningful treaty on cutting carbon emissions must be legally binding and include developing countries too. The Secretary of State will know, for example, that while developed countries are likely to meet the collective Kyoto target of a 5.2 % reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2012, global emissions of carbon dioxide rose by 45% between 1990 and 2010. The challenge now, as I am sure the Government recognise, is translating the principles and aspirations that were agreed at Durban into a treaty that can actually deliver the cuts in greenhouse gases we need.
	As the Secretary of State himself has admitted:
	“There are still many details to be hammered out”.
	May I ask him to give the House a little more detail on the following issues? What safeguards were put in place at Durban to ensure that the next round of negotiations will deliver a legally binding global agreement by 2015? How does he intend to use our strong relationships with countries such as the United States and Canada, as well as India and China, to help to broker a global agreement? Also, and importantly, how does he plan to monitor the progress that is being made and to keep the House up to date?
	Thirdly, I welcome the establishment of the green climate fund, negotiations for which started at Copenhagen under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend who is now the Leader of the Opposition. If properly financed, it will provide vital support to the poorest countries to cut their carbon emissions, mitigate the effects of climate change and underpin the positive support for a global legal framework. Again, although important details are yet to be agreed, this serves as a warning about the length of time it can take for an idea shared to become an idea implemented. On the detail of the fund, will the Secretary of State say a little more about how he expects the necessary resources to be raised so that it is up and running as soon as possible, and what contribution he expects the UK to make?
	Although progress has been made at Durban, it has also shown the scale of the challenge we face and the need for a strong European voice making the case to tackle climate change. The Secretary of State himself said that the Durban conference showed that we can achieve more working with our partners in Europe than we can on our own. We can only compare that with the outcome of last week’s EU summit, which left us isolated. As the Deputy Prime Minister’s chief parliamentary and political adviser, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), put it:
	“Our new position comes with very real risks. To be in a minority of one is not good.”
	Will the Secretary of State reassure us that the UK’s voice within Europe on climate change will not be undermined as a result of the Prime Minister’s actions?
	Finally, does the Secretary of State agree that reducing carbon emissions and preventing climate change are as much about example as exhortation? He has been generous enough to recognise the record of the previous Labour Government. We reduced the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions by more than 21% compared with emissions in 1990, thereby exceeding our Kyoto target. We also passed the Climate Change Act 2008, which was a world first, binding the UK Government in law to reduce carbon emissions by a third by 2020 and by 80% by 2050.
	The Secretary of State will know that there is genuine concern across the House about the Government’s commitment to being the greenest Government ever, not least today when the cuts to the feed-in tariff for solar power come into effect. We hear that the Green investment bank will be delayed, and the future of carbon capture and storage is in doubt, so I ask him to reassure me and the House that alongside our international efforts to reach agreement to cut carbon emissions and tackle climate change, the Government will not lose sight of the need to make the UK cleaner, greener and a world leader in the low carbon economy.

Christopher Huhne: I very much welcome the right hon. Lady’s response. It is very valuable, when going into negotiations such as those at Durban, to know that there is widespread consensus across the House on the key goals we are aiming for. I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly those who have been following these issues closely, in helping to sustain that consensus.
	The emissions gap is too large and we will work on it. As the right hon. Lady rightly said, one of the key issues has been the importance of monitoring. One thing that the UK Government have actively encouraged has been the development of the emissions gap report from the United Nations Environment Programme. I had a very fruitful meeting with Achim Steiner in Durban, and I know that the programme will continue to build on that. I very much hope that that monitoring will build gradually over time to become the environmental and climate change equivalent of the sort of regular reporting that we have from the OECD and particularly from the International Monetary Fund on the world economic outlook. It would be good to have a regular world climate change outlook or global climate change report.
	On the legal side, the step forward is very significant. As the right hon. Lady will no doubt have read in the press, there was an attempt, right up to the last moment, to insert into the final text the words “legal outcome”, which had been defined in the past by India and China as merely decisions of the conference of the parties. That would not have been adequately legally binding for our purposes in terms of an overall treaty. It was therefore an essential objective of the European Union’s team to take out those words and insert words that could not be interpreted as a voluntarist approach but could mean only that there was a legal agreement with real force. The compromise from the Brazilians which we finally adopted does exactly that—on the advice we received from the very able international lawyer on the
	UK team. That was confirmed at the time by our legal advisers—under some great pressure, I have to say, as we huddled at 4 in the morning, or whatever time it was, in the plenary room. They also advised some of our partners in that coalition of the willing. I think that we got a good deal that means exactly what it says.
	I very much take on board the key point that we need to ensure that our environmental goals are not seen as an obstacle to development. That is an agenda on which I want very much to work with the Indian Environment Minister to ensure that there are viable and effective pathways to development at every level of income per head. I was particularly proud to participate in the launch of Ethiopia’s zero-carbon growth programme with the support of the Mauritian and UK Governments. Prime Minister Meles was at the launch as well. At the middle-income level, there is the example of Costa Rica. At the high-income level, let me respond to the right hon. Lady’s point about what we are doing domestically. I was very pleased that an objective assessment of what is being done by European countries, which was produced last week by Germanwatch, concluded that the UK had the second-best framework for dealing with carbon emissions of all 27 member states of the EU, behind only Sweden. However, our ministerial team likes to come first, so we will work on that.
	On the key issue concerning our allies, such as the US and Canada, the right hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need to build our relationships there and ensure that they can be brought into that agreement as well. She asked for details of the global climate fund and about our support for it. We stand ready to support it and we have already disbursed £1 billion of the £1.5 billion allocated for fast-start finance. We are one of very few countries to have a programme of financial commitments for developing countries beyond the fast-start finance period. We have allocated £2.9 billion in total for the comprehensive spending review period and, as I said in my statement, I very much hope that we will be able to make an announcement in due course when we have concluded the arrangements on the shape of the green climate fund.
	Finally, the right hon. Lady rightly mentions the importance of working with our European partners. This is a particular example of the success of European diplomacy. As one member state we would not be able to achieve anything like as much as we have been able to achieve working closely with the other 26 member states and contribute to that with the undoubted expertise we have within the UK team. Importantly, when it came to the key negotiations, it was perceived in the plenary that the European Union was acting together, and that we were very much prepared to carry through on our threat. Often in these negotiations a good bit of leverage is needed, and we were prepared to carry out our threat that we would not go ahead with the second commitment period of the Kyoto protocol unless we had those key assurances that the future agreement would be legally binding.
	In addition to the change that I described in the politics of the conference, it is highly significant that China, India and Brazil, but particularly China and India, have moved substantially in the direction of accepting that we need an overall agreement which will reach a global solution to the problem.

Tony Baldry: May I offer my right hon. Friend many congratulations on what has been achieved? Does he agree that one of the major achievements of Durban was that for the first time everyone in the world, including the major emitters—the United States, India and China—are now committed to the same process of a legally binding agreement? For the first time ever, everyone is going in the same direction towards the same objective. A simple machinery of government question: will the funding for the green climate fund come from the budget of my right hon. Friend’s Department or that of Department for International Development?

Christopher Huhne: We have to determine the exact way we disburse money for the green climate fund. As I say, we will make an announcement in due course. My hon. Friend is right to say important it is that everybody has signed up to that global agreement.

Barry Gardiner: I congratulate the Secretary of State and his team on what was achieved at Durban. It was a vindication of the European negotiating position. Can he provide the House with further clarity on the climate fund money after the start-up period? Will he confirm that at least 50% of that money will be provided for adaptation and that the bulk of it will not go to mitigation, as was part of the original agreement? Will he also comment, please, on the gap there will be between the conclusion of the negotiations no later than 2015 and the 2020 deadline for implementation of those commitments? There is a perception in emerging economies that the earlier they conclude the negotiation, the bigger the gap will be in what those commitments deliver in 2020.

Christopher Huhne: Let me answer the last part of that question first. The most encouraging thing is that we dealt with both time periods. There is a clear commitment to dealing with a single over-arching global agreement from 2020, but there is also a clear set of procedures—admittedly, no numbers yet—for addressing the emissions gap from now through to 2020, so the process will not stop in 2015. We have achieved great progress in getting real action. The contrast is often noted between Canada, which is a signatory to Kyoto protocol but is busting all its targets, and China, which is not bound on emissions but is doing an awful lot. We are able to do an awful lot and that is very important.
	Adaptation is key and yes, that will be essential to the efforts of the green climate fund, particularly the public funding. It is much more difficult to get private funding for adaptation measures—that is much easier on the mitigation side. I expect that the publicly funded aspect will be higher than 50%. I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the recent OECD report, which found that our existing commitments on and support for adaptation measures were among the best, and that will continue.

Andrew George: Notwithstanding the answer that my right hon. Friend gave the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), what lessons can we take from the conference when negotiating international agreements? Does he believe that the UK’s contribution to this welcome outcome would have been made easier or more difficult had we adopted an isolationist posture?

Christopher Huhne: The Prime Minister has made his position on other matters quite clear. On negotiations, from my experience in Brussels—I know that the Deputy Prime Minister had a similar experience when we were Members of the European Parliament—I can say that it is absolutely key that one has to be in the room where one’s interests are being affected. That is essential. In Brussels there is an adage that is one of the first rules of negotiating: if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu. I have an awful feeling that we should bear that in mind in all aspects of international negotiations, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that when it comes to the UK’s participation in the United Nations framework convention on climate change, we were in all the key rooms at all times. At one point last year in Cancun, for example, I can assure him that we—[Interruption.] The UK delegation—the team. What generally happens is that the group of people who are deciding on the key compromises gets smaller and smaller. I can assure my hon. Friend that at every stage of the game, right the way through to the final huddle, the UK was represented. That is a central negotiating objective.

Nigel Evans: I gave a little latitude there, but I am not looking for an extension of the first statement.

Alan Whitehead: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the outcome of a conference that was widely regarded as unlikely to succeed, even in the objectives that have been set down now. It is substantially because of the EU’s negotiating position and the British role in it that that very good outcome was achieved, even though there is a great deal more to do.
	Will the right hon. Gentleman expand on the role of Connie Hedegaard, the EU Commissioner for Climate Action, originally from the Danish Conservative People’s party, in careful negotiation, keeping the parties together and making sure that the EU presented a united front and that no one withdrew from that? Will he confirm that the EU position, which I hope will develop up to 2020, will have the full-hearted participation of the UK as the new treaty approaches a conclusion?

Christopher Huhne: Yes, Connie Hedegaard led the European Union efforts very ably, drawing on her experience in Danish politics and then in Europe. That was a critical part of the success. I reiterate, however, that it is not merely a question of finding the right negotiating strategy, which is what the European Union did. The EU understood from the word go that it was crucial that we move pressure on to the big emitters, China in particular, from the other developing countries and that we establish that new relationship with a substantial number of developing countries. That was ably led by Connie Hedegaard.
	The other thing that I would highlight is that when one gets into negotiations and has a number of essential asks, the negotiating counterparties have to believe that one is serious and not going to buckle. In the past it has been the case that some of the more herbivorous members of the European Union have been taken as willing to buckle. We did not do that on this occasion and as a result we got every single one of our asks.

Zac Goldsmith: I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on the progress that has been made, particularly given that I do not think anyone really believed that there would be progress. I also welcome the declaration relating to the Congo basin—the second largest tract of rain forest in the world—which was launched by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker). The Secretary of State mentioned progress on reducing emissions from deforestation, and I was hoping that he could be a little more specific.

Christopher Huhne: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his interest in that area and the work he has done. The Congo basin initiative is absolutely crucial. We aim to work with some interesting projects through bilateral support from the UK Government for some key forest nations, which will be in the Amazon, the Congo basin and Indonesia. Further progress was made through the technical achievements in the working groups, which he will find set out in the full agreement.

Caroline Lucas: The Secretary of State talked about the importance of monitoring. Monitoring is important, but so is action. I am deeply worried that, unless we see much faster action, we risk going down in history as the species that spent all its time monitoring it own extinction, rather than taking active steps to avoid it. The Durban agreement will not limit global warming to 2°, as he acknowledged, which means that we are on course for exceedingly dangerous climate change, so what will he do to ensure that the EU moves as fast as possible, unilaterally if necessary, to a 30% reduction target by 2020?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. Action is the most important ultimate benchmark of what we do, but I urge her not to underestimate the importance of knowledge in informing action. One of the key gaps that we need to fill in this area is regular reporting and attention on the gap between what we are doing and what we need to do to hold the global temperature rise to within 2°, beneath the level that would create dangerous climate change. I have had discussions not only with Marcin Korolec, the Environment Minister of Poland, which currently holds the presidency of the Council of the European Union, but with Martin Lidegaard, the Energy and Climate Change Minister of Denmark, which will hold the presidency for the first half of next year. I had good conversations with him in Durban and am confident that the Danes will bring forward some clear time within the Council to ensure that we make real progress towards some of the key staging posts in reaching 30%. Perhaps most progress will be made on the energy efficiency directive, because it should be relatively easy to agree and we know that energy efficiency measures tend to have benefits outright. We are thinking about how to do that and I hope that the European Union will be able to move forward on domestic action in the first six months of next year.

Jeremy Lefroy: I thank my right hon. Friend and his team for their work. What does he intend to do to encourage other countries to sign up to the green climate fund and follow the UK’s lead?

Christopher Huhne: The power of example is quite powerful, as the Minister of State and I have discovered. We have substantial credit for what this Government are doing on development among African countries and other developing countries, and I think that that power of example is carrying over to other developed countries. I very much hope that others will join in helping to fill the green climate fund. A number of countries have already been prepared to make conditional pledges, including the Government of Korea, and I am sure that there will be others.

Mark Lazarowicz: At the most recent Energy and Climate Change questions I expressed my concern about progress in the negotiations. I would like to put on the record my tribute to the Secretary of State and his team for their work in helping to secure substantial progress. He mentioned the importance of monitoring and information in the period running up to 2015, but he will also be aware that there is a danger that things might go a little quiet after the negotiations in Durban and that in the run-up to 2015 there might yet again be last-minute political pressure and attempts to put decisions off to another day. What steps can be taken to ensure that there is an opportunity for a political focus from now until 2015 not only in the UK, but in other countries, to ensure that we have an agreement in 2015? For example, what review mechanisms are in place to allow politicians and Governments to have an impact on the negotiations to ensure that they result in the type of agreement we want in 2015?

Christopher Huhne: The UNFCCC process provides numerous opportunities, including through the groups around it, such as the Major Economies Forum and the Clean Energy Ministerial meeting, which we will host next spring, in order to bring political leadership to the whole process. I was very encouraged by what happened at Durban and that the political leadership is increasingly there, and we need to build on that.

Jo Swinson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend and all those involved in the negotiations in Durban on a very welcome outcome, especially after so many disappointing climate change talks. I wholeheartedly agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on the need for the EU to step up its own emissions targets, but that will clearly be a challenge, given the global economic difficulties we face. Will my right hon. Friend tell us more about the progress being made on the Technology Executive Committee to promote low-carbon technology so that we can simultaneously boost our economy and reduce emissions?

Christopher Huhne: Progress is being made in that regard. The key is to ensure that appropriate progress is made at different levels of development. Much can be achieved in some of the poorer developing countries where there are low levels of development by ensuring, for example, that people simply use more efficient forms of burning wood for cooking. We are making progress on the technological issue, but it applies at all levels of development.

Rushanara Ali: How much funding has the international community raised towards the $100 billion green climate fund and what international leadership are he and the Government providing to ensure that other Governments make a strong commitment to meet the goal of reaching the full amount urgently, rather than waiting for 2020?

Christopher Huhne: Perhaps I should clarify that the $100 billion a year commitment relates to not only the green climate fund, but other sources of finance. It is obviously due when the agreement comes into force from 2020, but in the meantime we have fast-start finance. I have already said what our commitment is. A number of websites are available that add up where we have got to in relation to international pledges. I do not have the figure at the moment, but I will be happy to respond at the next Energy and Climate Change oral questions or to write to the hon. Lady with the latest information.

Glyn Davies: For a UN treaty on climate change to be meaningful and successful, all the major emitters in the world must be part of it, so it was encouraging to hear that the United States, China, India and Brazil are part of this agreement. How satisfied is the Secretary of State that the treaty obligations are legally binding, that those nations are not just paying lip service and that they will deliver on the commitments we are expecting?

Christopher Huhne: The key point on legally binding treaties is that they are not a sufficient condition for dealing with the problem. We must have follow-through in national action, but such treaties are a necessary condition. I cannot think of any international problem that has been resolved without a legal framework. For example, the idea that President Reagan could have gone to Moscow and suggested that international nuclear disarmament or the strategic arms reduction treaty process could proceed with voluntary pledges would have been regarded as laughable. We have stressed, and will continue to stress, that the key objective is to ensure that this is done through a legally binding international treaty that provides everyone with an assurance that we are all moving.
	There is a lot of national action. One of the great myths is that we are the only country doing anything, by which I mean that when I talk to fellow Energy and Climate Change Ministers I find that they all say, “But we’re the only country doing something.” In fact, there is a tremendous amount of action. One useful initiative I participated in was the launch of the GLOBE international study of parliamentarians interested in this area, which set out clearly the amount of action being undertaken through legislation right around the world. We will ensure that that process continues.

Michael Weir: There is a gap between promise and delivery not only on emissions, but—as often happens at international conferences—on the amount of money pledged for funds. The green climate fund is important, because climate justice demands that many countries suffering from climate change need help now, but who does the Secretary of State expect to put money into the fund, how soon it will be in place and how soon will money be given to such countries to help
	them out? I am concerned about his comment that few countries other than the UK have contributed to the fund so far.

Christopher Huhne: I should make it clear that no one has contributed to the green climate fund so far, because it has not been set up. The agreement at Durban, which after all was reached only yesterday morning at 6 o’clock, was to set up the fund, so the hon. Gentleman is being slightly churlish in expecting us to have sorted out all the details and got the fund up and running within 24 hours or so of reaching the agreement. I have no doubt that it will happen; there are a number of pledges already and, as I have said, we stand ready to make announcements in due course. I said to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) that I would write to her on the latest state of play on international commitments generally to fast-start finance, for example, and I am happy to copy in the hon. Gentleman on that answer.

Graham Stuart: As president of GLOBE in the House of Commons, may I thank the Secretary of State for attending the launch of the second GLOBE climate legislation study, which shows tremendous action taking place in many countries and most of all in developing countries? Does he agree that there is an enormous benefit to the UK economy from closer bilateral work with India and, perhaps in particular, China in the light of the visit, hosted by GLOBE recently, of Xie Zhenhua, the Chinese Minister with responsibility for such matters?

Christopher Huhne: Yes, I agree very much that the relationships that we are increasingly building with China and India are very valuable and absolutely key to the agenda’s success. We have to make it clear that there is no conflict between the absolutely legitimate expectation of developing countries to be able to raise the living standards of their people and our need to protect our children and our grandchildren, and their children and their grandchildren, from the effects of climate change. One of the most passionate and moving speeches that I heard in Durban was from a Bangladeshi Minister, who described the real threat that there is to his country and to his people if we do not get a grip on climate change.

Mark Durkan: I commend the Secretary of State for his statement and the ongoing work that it reflects. He mentioned the resolution on a work programme to look at long-term sources of finance for developing programmes. When does he anticipate the programme commencing? Does he believe that the UK’s input will be on an EU axis, and do the possible sources of finance include in that context a financial transaction tax?

Christopher Huhne: The work programme will kick off, and it is up to the UNFCCC secretariat to arrange the details, but I do not anticipate any time being lost in setting it up and getting it under way. The details of those represented on it will be settled through the process, but we as a Government are keenly interested and have a lot of expertise in the area, so I hope that we will be able to play a full part and, depending on how that is determined, be represented on any group that pushes the work programme forward.
	On the financial transaction tax, the hon. Gentleman will know that we as a Government support financial taxes in general. We have moved on our own banking levy, for example, further and faster than other European countries, and we take the view that we can have further taxes on financial services, but that if such a tax touches areas that are very mobile, as a financial transaction tax obviously would do, it must be concluded at a global level. It cannot be done in only one country, because if it is the activity switches to other centres, and one simply loses out on all the revenue that one anticipated.
	With that very important caveat of realism, the issue certainly has been talked about, but I do not believe that it is very likely to make progress, given the stand that other key parties have made against a financial transaction tax—and I am thinking in particular of the United States.

David Mowat: The Secretary of State will be aware that in the last year of the previous Government we were 25th out of 27th on the percentage of our energy that came from renewables, ahead only of Malta and Luxembourg in the EU. Did that impair his ability to lead by example in Durban; and will he confirm that by the end of this Parliament we will have gone a substantial way to correcting that?

Christopher Huhne: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. He is absolutely right that the record that we inherited from the previous Government placed us 25th out of 27 EU member states on installed renewables, and I am determined that, having worn the dunce’s cap for some time, we shall make all the best efforts to get out of the dunce’s corner and be the fastest-improving pupil in the class.

Points of Order

Caroline Flint: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As we approach the Christmas recess, Her Majesty’s Opposition still await overdue answers to parliamentary questions: two from November, 10 from last week and 10 from today. Twenty of those are from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, so through your office may I ask that all measures are taken to ensure that written parliamentary questions are answered, so that we have the information to do our job well?

Nigel Evans: Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard the right hon. Lady’s plea, and I am sure that Ministers will do what they can to ensure that answers are forthcoming speedily. Of course, there will be other opportunities between now and the recess for her to pursue those matters.

Diana Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I seek your advice on the answer that the Home Secretary gave me this afternoon at Home Office questions? It related to statistics to which the Immigration Minister and the Prime Minister have referred, but about which the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir Michael Scholar, has raised concerns—in terms of breaching the statutory code of practice, the ministerial code and the published guidance on the handling of official statistics, issued by the Cabinet Secretary.
	The Home Secretary used those figures again this afternoon, and in the light of that can you, Mr Deputy Speaker, request that the statistics to which she referred are now placed in the Library and fully published, so that all parliamentarians can scrutinise them? Currently, the Commons is at a disadvantage, as only the Government have sight of them and keep referring to them.

Mr Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. Ministerial answers are the responsibility of Ministers, but, again, Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Lady’s plea.

Immigration

Damian Green: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the matter of immigration.
	It is very important that the Government have found time for this debate today. Immigration is a big issue for many millions of people, and this Government, unlike their predecessors, are not going to sweep the debate under the carpet. It is very important, because immigration stands at the centre of what we want this country to be.
	On the one hand, we know what benefits immigration brings to this country’s culture, society and economy. Many of our communities have been enriched by the contribution of generations of migrants, and it is absolutely right that in today’s competitive global economy we attract the brightest and the best to this country.

Barry Gardiner: The Minister talks of attracting the brightest and the best to our country. I had a meeting with him a week or so ago about those brightest and best students who came to this country to study at the TASMAC business school. They have been subject not only to the fraud perpetrated on them by TASMAC, which went into liquidation, but to the Home Office now saying that they came to this country to study on one basis, namely that they would be allowed to work for 20 hours in the afternoon, but that that will no longer be admissible, given that they have to extend their visas because the college has gone bust. Does the Minister think that that is fair; and does he think that it is the way to attract the brightest and best in the future?

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman is aware, because he has indeed had a meeting with me, that we must have rules in place. A huge number of bogus and fraudulent colleges have been closed down, one way or another. Of course, genuine students will have been caught up in that, and we give those genuine students 60 days to find a properly accredited college to move to. I think that two months is a fair time in which to ask people to find a new course. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman continues to chunter from a sedentary position, but he has to accept that we must enforce the rules and do so fairly; that is why we have the 60-day period. The alternative is to allow potentially bogus students to come here, or genuine students to come here and be exploited by bogus colleges. The tough action we have taken in this field is not only good for our immigration controls but good for genuine students who want to come here—the brightest and the best to whom I referred—and who will no longer be exploited and defrauded by the bogus colleges that have existed for far too long.

Frank Field: The Minister said that one of the advantages of the system has been attracting the brightest and the best and the culture that they add to this country, but surely for us to benefit from their culture, they need to integrate with us. Are there not areas of the country where almost no integration has taken place and there are now serious political difficulties?

Damian Green: The right hon. Gentleman is right, and I will address that point later. Some of the measures that we are taking are precisely to promote integration. My colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government have their own strategy for dealing with that on the ground. Of course, immigration policy can contribute to integration by ensuring that those who come here can, for example, speak English. That is one of the changes in the rules that we have introduced in certain parts of the immigration system. It is an absolutely basic point that if someone wants to come and settle in a country, they should wish to integrate to some extent, and they should therefore be able to speak some English. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that.
	As I say, this country has clearly gained huge advantages from immigration, but on the other hand, the people of this country have a right to know that the Government are protecting their jobs, enforcing tough requirements on those who come here, and sending home those who break the rules. That is why three things are essential. First, it is essential to control the overall numbers coming here for long periods. Secondly, and equally importantly, we must establish a system that is properly selective among those who want to come here—one that brings to the country people who can support our development but keeps out those who cannot or will not. Thirdly, the system must properly enforce the rules.
	Let me start by talking about the need for a focused, selective immigration system. The system that this Government inherited was not only chaotic but indiscriminate. The previous Government’s approach was about unlimited immigration, with no limits on tier 1 or tier 2 of the points-based system; tier 1 general and tier 1 post-study work for workers with no job offer; large numbers of supposedly the most skilled immigrants ending up in low-skilled jobs; little-used routes for investors and entrepreneurs; and no restriction on the length of stay for intra-company transfers. Since the points-based system was introduced in 2009, student visa numbers went up from 232,000 to a record 320,000. In 2010, the UK Border Agency had to suspend student applications in some regions because of abuse.
	Our first task, therefore, was to impose some much-needed rigour. We have already looked at all the migration routes to ensure that they are selective in the ways that we want them to be—through work, study, family, and settlement by workers. We carried out public consultations on each one of those routes. By next April, we will have reformed them all so that they better meet the needs of this country. We have imposed an annual limit of 20,700 sponsored workers with a specific job offer. We have closed the tier 1 general route and replaced it with a smaller, more focused exceptional talent route. We have restricted tier 2 to graduate-level occupations and intermediate-level English speakers. We have restricted intra-company transfers to 12 months unless the person coming is earning £40,000 a year or more.
	We have done the same sort of thing on the student routes. We have introduced tougher entry requirements requiring higher language competency and evidence of the ability to pay maintenance. Any educational institutions that want to bring in students from overseas will be highly trusted sponsors and will be vetted by the relevant inspectorate so that there will be proper inspections and proper accreditation in future. Post-study workers will
	need a skilled job offer under tier 2 if they want to stay in the UK. We have also consulted on reforms to the overseas domestic worker route. Some 15,000 visas are issued to overseas domestic workers each year, and we will restrict this in future. On the family migration route, we have consulted on new measures to tackle abuse of family migration; to promote integration, as I said; and to reduce burdens on the taxpayer. Within the next few months, we will bring forward proposals that will achieve all those aims.
	Let me pause for a second on a point about the family route, because I should make it clear that the main benefit of this aspect of our reforms will be better community cohesion. No longer will people, usually young women, be brought half way across the world, with no knowledge of our language or our culture, to live lives cut off from the mainstream of British society. It is not fair on them, and it is particularly not fair on their children, who need mothers who can explain the world in which the children live in the language they use outside the home.
	Settling in Britain should be a privilege, not an automatic add-on to a temporary way in. We are therefore going to break the automatic link between work and settlement. Only those who contribute the most economically will be able to stay. The Migration Advisory Committee has given us recommendations on how to achieve this.
	Finally—

Chris Bryant: I thought that the hon. Gentleman might be going to say a little more about what the Migration Advisory Committee has recommended. It has suggested a lower threshold and a higher threshold, and I wonder which of those two he is aiming for.

Damian Green: I think that that comes under the heading of a nice try. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait until we have fully assessed the recommendations of the Migration Advisory Committee, and the House will be told at the proper time when we have come to a proper decision.
	Finally, across the main routes we have raised the level of the English language levels required. Those coming to the UK across these routes must be able to speak sufficient English to play a full role in our society.
	In 18 months, we have completely reformed vast tracts of the immigration system, and there are the first small signs—I agree that they are small straws in the wind because of the chaos we inherited—that our policies are starting to make an impact. The most recent published quarterly statistics for June to September 2011 show that student visas issued under tier 4 are down by 13% and main work visas are down by 18% on the same period in 2010. The very latest net migration figures to March 2011 are also encouraging, showing a fall since a recent peak for the year ending September 2010. However, I will not disguise from the House the fact that this is a long and difficult process. Net immigration was rising rapidly in the last three years of the previous Government. That is why we said at the general election that it would take the whole of this Parliament to bring it down to sustainable levels—to the tens of thousands annually that we think appropriate—and why we have been taking the necessary steps since day one of this Government.

Frank Field: Is not the reason the net migration figures are disappointing that there has been a collapse of migration from this country? If the migration rates had continued at their former pace, the Minister would have had much more impressive figures to report. On the three reports that he is promising the House on families, on students and on citizenship, will he be a little more definite about when we will know what the Government’s plans are in this next stage of trying to tighten up on immigration?

Damian Green: The student changes have largely been announced. Those that did not come into force last April or October will come into force next April. I hope that within a few weeks of the House’s return we will be able to announce proposals on settlement and, following that, on the family route.
	On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, emigration has fallen and is at its lowest level since 2001. It may well return to trend at some stage. However, Government policy needs to be about controlling what we can control. Clearly, emigration is not under the direct control of the Government. Immigration numbers have only just started coming off the top, as I indicated a few minutes ago. The policies that I have announced will, over the years, bring that number down markedly. That is the main reason why I am confident that we can hit our targets.

Tony Baldry: All Government Members would acknowledge the chaotic situation that my hon. Friend inherited. One difficulty of that inheritance is the number of failed asylum seekers who were left by the previous Government and who are still here. I cannot believe that I am alone among colleagues in what I find when I investigate the immigration status of the people who come to see me. I discover that they have been told that they have exhausted all their remedies and have been advised to leave. Of course, they have no intention of doing so because they wish to remain in the UK and know that if they manage to remain here for a long time, there is always a chance that the courts will give them some right to remain here under human rights legislation. Therefore, this is a question not just of stopping the routes for people coming in, but of dealing with failed asylum seekers who have no right to be within the jurisdiction.

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is right. I will come on to the subject of removals shortly, if he can hold on. The other way to improve the asylum system is to ensure that it is faster. If we leave failed asylum seekers here for many years, as the previous Government did, they establish rights that enable the courts to leave them here. That is why I am so pleased to report that 59% of new asylum claims now get a decision within a month. The asylum system is completely transformed from what is still the public image of it. Indeed, half of new asylum claims are now entirely decided within six months. I assure him and the House that the asylum system is genuinely unrecognisable from the state that it was in a few years ago.
	I talked about a selective immigration policy. It is not just about numbers. We want the brightest and the best to come here, and we want to support economic growth. That is why we have consulted so carefully business and the higher education sector on our reforms. On the
	work front, every month since we introduced the limit, the visas on offer have been undersubscribed. It is important for the House to know that not a single valuable worker has been prevented from coming here by our limit. To promote the brightest and the best, we made the investor and entrepreneur routes more attractive and accessible, for instance through an accelerated path to settlement. The latest quarterly figures show that the numbers for both investors and entrepreneurs have more than doubled compared with the same period last year. We have opened a new route for exceptional talent, through which applicants do not need a job offer but must be endorsed by a competent body as world-leading talent.
	Britain has always been a nation with a worldwide reputation in the education sector. We want top students to come here. We cannot have world-class education if our institutions are closed to the outside world. That is why our changes to the student visa route are raising the standards for licensing colleges that sponsor foreign students. Only colleges offering a genuine, high-quality education will be able to sponsor international students in future.
	Being selective is also about enforcing the rules robustly. Our border controls must be strong. The idea of the UK border starting at Dover or Heathrow is becoming increasingly out of date. Where it is appropriate, we will continue to export our borders so that they start at airports and visa application centres around the world. If people come through France, the borders may start at juxtaposed controls at Calais or Gare du Nord in Paris, or Brussels, rather than at Dover or St Pancras International. We are working hard with France and Belgium to ensure that people cannot exploit their Lille tickets to come to this country. We will continue to work with the authorities of other countries to align and strengthen border security arrangements. We now have a network of staff who work abroad with carriers to ensure that only correctly documented passengers are brought to the United Kingdom.
	One statistic not often quoted about the UKBA is that last year it refused 385,000 visa applications. Every year, many thousands more people without the correct documents are prevented from boarding planes overseas in the first place. That is the best way to protect our borders, rather than waiting for people to come to this country, as we used to do.

Russell Brown: The Minister knows, from discussions that he and I have had, about the problem with southern Ireland. Can he tell the House how many people have been refused entry from the south of Ireland into the north?

Damian Green: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are no border controls between southern Ireland and Northern Ireland because we all subsist in the common travel area. However, I am happy to tell him, as I think I have before in this House, that I am shortly to visit Dublin to sign a memorandum of understanding with the Irish Government that will strengthen the common travel area. He makes a valid point, from his constituency interest in the port of Stranraer, that we need to ensure
	that the common travel area is as robust as it should be. I am determined to do that and so are the Government of the Irish Republic.
	Under e-Borders, we already screen more than 90% of non-EU flights and more than 55% of all flights into and out of the UK. We are continually extending the number of routes and carriers covered. More than 10,000 wanted criminals, including murderers, rapists and those responsible for smuggling drugs or humans into the country, have been arrested at the border as a result of such advance passenger screening. As a result of joint working with the French authorities and the use of improved technology, it has become even more difficult for clandestines to evade border controls. That has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of attempts to cross illegally from France to Dover from more than 29,000 in 2009 to 9,700 in 2010. That is a significant strengthening of our border between Calais and Dover.
	To move on to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), we are tackling those who come here illegally as well as those who have come for a limited amount of time and then not gone home. We are making life more uncomfortable for those people. Those who are not compliant in one area usually are not compliant in others. We are therefore working ever more with organisations such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the NHS and credit reference agencies to track people down and encourage them to go home of their own accord. We tell credit reference agencies about illegal immigrants so that they cannot easily access credit.
	We are also focusing on criminals who facilitate people staying here illegally, such as sham marriage facilitators and passport factories. The UKBA and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are working together to come down hard on rogue businesses that use illegal labour to evade tax and minimum wage laws. The first year of that joint work resulted in more than 130 arrests and potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds of tax liabilities for HMRC. A targeted campaign this summer saw more than 550 arrests. We are seeing the results. On 25 November, a Moroccan serial fraudster who used a fake identity to get British citizenship and claim an estimated £400,000 in benefits was sentenced to nearly seven years in prison. Last month, a Vietnamese woman was found guilty of conspiracy to facilitate and smuggle immigrants from Vietnam to Europe and was sentenced to five years in prison at Maidstone Crown court.

Stewart Jackson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm whether there are any plans to extend nationally the pilot scheme that is being undertaken in Peterborough to remove people who are not exercising their rights under the former worker registration scheme and the free movement directive? It has been very successful, with the UKBA working with both the local police and the local authority to remove those individuals, who at the moment are a burden on the public purse.

Damian Green: I am pleased to hear from my hon. Friend, who has a long history of campaigning on the issue on behalf of his constituency, that he has seen signs of the success of that activity in Peterborough. As he knows, the problem to which he refers is concentrated
	in particular areas, so we are not planning to roll the scheme out nationally. That would not be the best use of resources. We want to concentrate on the two or three areas in which that problem is most acute.
	Apart from the successful arrests and prosecutions that I have talked about, we are also working to remove people more quickly to more countries. Between May 2010 and October this year, we completed a total of 68 special charter flights of people being removed who had no right to be here, which resulted in 2,542 removals. We are also tackling the problems of the past as they relate to foreign national prisoners. We are starting the deportation process earlier and removing foreign criminals quicker than ever.
	Finally, being selective is also about protecting the most vulnerable. Britain should always be open to those genuinely seeking asylum from persecution. As I have said, the asylum system is demonstrably better than it was a few years ago. Over the past 15 months, we have reduced by a quarter the number of asylum seekers awaiting a decision on their application.

Barry Gardiner: I welcome much of what the Minister has said, but there appears to be a glitch in the legacy casework that is being cleared up, and I would be grateful if he addressed it before concluding his remarks. When those who have been locked in the last phase of the legacy casework are brought to the attention of the Home Office, instead of the Home Office addressing some of its failings that have left those people in limbo-land, it is fast-tracking them for deportation. The genuine concerns about how their cases have been dealt with have not been addressed.

Damian Green: I do not think I understand what the hon. Gentleman means about them being fast-tracked to deportation. That is a legal process, and among the powers that the Immigration Minister does not have—sadly, I sometimes think—is the power to decide how fast the courts operate.

Barry Gardiner: rose —

Damian Green: I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, so I give way to him again.

Barry Gardiner: Perhaps I did not explain the matter as clearly as I should have done. What is happening is that when a Member of Parliament makes representations on a case that has been outstanding, often for many years, and highlights times when the Home Office has failed to respond appropriately or has lost documents, the people in question are suddenly being called in for deportation instead of the MP receiving a response that adequately addresses the past loss of documents or failure on the part of the Home Office. Basically, those people are taken out of the system by being taken out of the country, and the problem is not resolved or tackled.

Damian Green: If the hon. Gentleman knows of individual cases in which that is happening, I know he will be assiduous in writing to me on the subject. All I can sensibly say is that, as he says, there was clearly a problem. We have now investigated every one of the cases that was left as part of that terrible legacy, and the vast majority of people involved have received a decision.
	Somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000 cases are still live, either because there has been a long process or, in some cases, because people have reached the end of the road in their legal process, but there are some countries to which it is extremely difficult to remove people, for various reasons that the House will understand. As I said, if he has specific examples, he should let me know and I will take a look at them.
	As I said, the asylum process is much better than it used to be, but there is still much that we can do to improve it further. We have specifically initiated an asylum improvement programme aimed at bringing about improvements in the speed, efficiency and quality of decision making. For example, we have introduced an entirely new approach to managing the return of families who have no right to remain in this country. The aim is to encourage and support families to leave voluntarily, with financial and practical assistance, without the need for enforcement action. The number of children entering detention at immigration removal centres and short-term holding facilities fell from 1,119 in 2009 to 436 in 2010 and to just 65 in the first 10 months of 2011. In addition, 14 children entered our pre-departures accommodation in Sussex from its opening in the middle of August to the end of October.
	As I hope I have demonstrated to the House, we have taken vigorous and necessary early action to tackle the problem. I know how much passion it raises, and I know how many pressure groups hold strong views on all sides of the argument. We need to have these discussions. If mainstream, moderate politicians do not discuss immigration, we will leave the field clear to the extremists, whether the British National party, the English Defence League or the Islamists, whose only desire is to stir up hatred.
	We in this House must lead and shape the immigration debate, and to do so Members of all parties need to have a clear basis for their policies. I will be generous to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I do not expect Labour to have a fully worked out policy yet, and I will refrain from teasing him by quoting the noble Lord Glasman’s view about Labour’s lack of honesty on the issue when it was in government. However, I think it is legitimate to ask one simple question. Does the Labour party think that immigration at current levels is too high? If it cannot or will not answer that question, it cannot play a serious part in this important debate.
	As I have said, immigration can be beneficial to Britain, but the unsustainable levels that we have seen over the past decade have been damaging to our economy, our society and our country. That is why the Government are working so hard to get a grip on immigration and provide an immigration system that encourages the right people to come here and keeps out those who would harm us. It is not an easy task, and it will take years rather than months, but it is an absolutely essential task for the future well-being of our society. I can assure the House that the Government are implacably determined to get this right.

Chris Bryant: I will start with the issues on which I completely and utterly agree with the Minister. First, I agree that this is not an issue we should—[Interruption.] I am sorry, the Minister is wittering something, I think. [Interruption.] He is carrying on.
	The Minister said that he believed this House should consider immigration on a regular basis, and he is absolutely right that if serious politicians in the mainstream political parties do not talk about immigration, we vacate the scene and leave it to extremists from other political parties and those who have no desire to foster good community relations.
	Sometimes the debate gets heated, although I suspect it is not going to get very heated this evening if the proceedings so far are anything to go by. Some talk about immigration in this country is undoubtedly racist, but I have never subscribed to the view that just because somebody thinks immigration is the single most important political issue facing the country, that makes them racist. If I were to think that, I would probably be telling most of my constituents that they were racists. That is not because the Rhondda is full of people who have come to this country in recent years. In fact, I believe that of all the constituencies in the land it is the one where fewest people were born outside the UK, but that does not mean that my constituents are not directly affected by many of the issues that are enveloped in the whole issue of immigration.
	There is a great deal of misunderstanding. Many have confused asylum with immigration, and serious politicians have always wanted to keep those issues apart, as the Minister for Immigration has.
	I asked the Minister whether the Government had decided where they were going on the threshold salary that somebody should have if they were to bring in a dependant. He said it was a “good try”, but I asked solely because I thought the Government had an announcement to make today. I suspect that they were originally going to announce something, which was why they decided to hold this debate, but suddenly there were other important matters to be discussed, the announcement disappeared, and with it went the Home Secretary.
	It is a simple fact that because world travel is now so much easier for the vast majority of people, there is inevitably more migration. People can physically move around the world and relocate, and many more do so. Occasionally—I am sure all hon. Members have heard of this in their constituency surgeries—people go abroad on holiday, meet somebody and fall in love with them and want to bring them back to this country. For that matter, my parents met not in this country but in Spain—they were both British—and came back to the UK.
	Many other things have affected migration in recent years, not least the fact that countries that were once closed to the rest of the world have opened up, Spain being a classic example. Under Franco, Spain was closed to many, and people could not easily get a visa to go there or vice versa. Similarly, most of the eastern bloc of the EU was closed, as were Portugal and many other places.
	In addition, the UK, which is primarily a trading nation, has always had much inward and outward migration. In Wales, we are particularly conscious that, at the turn of the 20th century, when there were no jobs in south Wales, many Welsh people went to live in Argentina, which is why there is a large community of Welsh speakers there. Indeed, William Abraham tried
	to migrate to Argentina but could not get a job there. He ended up coming back here and became the first MP for Rhondda.
	The Minister referred to the fact that many British people go abroad, but it strike me that British people abroad are often far and away the worst at integrating into local communities—one has only to visit Buenos Aires, where there are more piped bands than there are in Stirling and Edinburgh put together, to recognise that enculturation is not the primary focus of British people when they go to other countries.
	For that matter, one has only to look at areas of south Wales to see that inward migration has been a vital part of the economic success of the past. Calzaghe is a not-unknown south Walean name, because people came from many places to work in the mines at one time. The English-Welsh word for a coffee shop is “brachi” because many thousands came from Badi in Italy in particular to work in the mines as that was where the work was. Likewise, many came from Ireland and even a few from England.
	The problem, of course, is that migration has very many different vectors. It is not, as some have assumed, that migration to this country has been stimulated because we have a supportive welfare system or a strong NHS. In actual fact, the vast majority of migration is caused by elements that push people away from their home country, be that war, famine or political instability, which often leads to asylum. I remember a debate a few weeks ago with the Immigration Minister on migration from north Africa. He was optimistic that the situation developing in the Maghreb would mean that many fewer would come to the UK than were originally expected either for asylum or other reasons, but the most recent figures show that there has been a significant migration to the UK and a significant increase in the number of asylum cases. That issue will inevitably have to be kept under review.
	One other potential vector, which other hon. Members have addressed on other occasions, is climate change. If the seas of the world rise because of climate change, there is a strong likelihood that some of the poorest people in the world will not only want to move but have no choice but to do so, because many of their homes are in the most exposed areas.
	I agree with the Minister that migration is not always good. Very often, refugees end up extremely disoriented when they arrive in this country, either because their language skills are not brilliant or because they do not understand the system—they might not even understand what side of the road we drive on and things like that. I was struck by that the other day. There was a fight in Tesco Metro and a young man, who had clearly been drinking, was shouting at the shopkeepers, “You have no understanding. I am in this country. I am allowed to be in this country, but I am not allowed to work.” It turned out he was Albanian. Who knows how he will manage to get himself home? The pain of many of those who are forced to travel the world because they are simply seeking a better place for themselves can be writ large.
	Often the receiving communities are ill equipped, either financially or culturally, to welcome people. When the number of asylum claimants in the UK was at its highest—not necessarily because of anything that had happened in this country, but because of factors in
	other parts of the world at a time of particularly unstable international relations—many communities in this country found it genuinely very difficult to take on board the number of people who went to live there, even though they wanted to be welcoming.
	In addition—this is what I am most aware of in my constituency because a number of constituents have raised it with me—many feel that there are few jobs out there at the moment as it is, particularly at the lower end of the scale. There are few jobs for manual labourers, and when they get them, they are sometimes turfed out after just three or four months because somebody comes from another EU country and is prepared to do the job more cheaply. A constituent came to me last week. He was delighted when three months ago his son got a job in Gloucester—he travelled there and back every day—but then his son and the five others who were employed were sacked and their jobs taken immediately by people from Poland. The vast majority of my constituents simply do not understand why that should be so and feel that there is a fundamental unfairness in the system.
	No hon. Member will today suggest that we should change all the EU’s provisions. Labour Members have already accepted that we should have introduced transitional arrangements for the countries that joined the EU more recently. We should have gone along with countries that did so, and we underestimated the number of people who would come to this country. Of course, two more countries will have full rights in 2014, and it will be interesting to hear the Government’s estimate of the number of people who will come to the UK from them.
	Although it is easy to identify some of the problems in relation to immigration, it is not always easy to identify the answers. I have been lobbied quite ferociously by quite a lot of lesbian and gay organisations on what they term “gay asylum”, which is when somebody comes to this country because they will be persecuted for their sexuality in their country. Those organisations believe that nobody should be sent back to their country to face discrimination and a difficult life. Although I wholeheartedly agree that we should not send lesbian and gay people back to Iran to face almost certain imprisonment, it is very difficult to have a simple, straightforward open door for anybody who chooses to claim that they are lesbian or gay. I suspect that the problem is not as simple as people would want it to be.
	Similarly, I raised the issue of family members coming to this country. Nobody in the House would believe that somebody bringing a spouse or a member of their family to this country should be able to do so and then put a burden on the state. The question though, as the Migration Advisory Committee has pointed out, is what placing a burden on the state means exactly. Does it mean that someone should not be in receipt of benefits or does it mean that at no stage in the future should that person receive anything from the state? That determines the level at which the threshold would be applied.
	Some of the poorer constituencies and communities are of course concerned that the rule will allow rich people to go abroad, fall in love and bring someone back, but poorer people will not be able to do that. The danger is that the rule is unfair.

Bob Stewart: The hon. Gentleman referred to being a burden on the state, which also makes me think of problems connected to education
	and the NHS. It is not just whether migrants are employed; it is also their need for services that we ordinarily expect for our citizens.

Chris Bryant: Indeed, and in a sense that is the conundrum that the Government have to try to resolve. At some point, they will obviously change the threshold from its present low level, but if they go for a significantly higher figure, the danger is that it will introduce an unfairness. The strange thing is that while people might be intrinsically opposed to individuals in general being allowed to bring others into this country, they tend to adopt a slightly different attitude when confronted by individuals that they have got to know.
	The NHS also has specific needs in relation to migration. Several hon. Members have approached me about problems that their local accident and emergency units are having, because these days many doctors do not want to work in those units—there can be violence, many people are drunk and there is no ongoing care for patients. Many trusts, and many local health boards in Wales, have been looking to recruit internationally, but it is impossible for them to do so because of the way in which the rules are structured. That is placing a very precise burden on some accident and emergency units. Of course it would be better if we planned better so that we did not have skills shortages, but in some parts of the country they do exist.

Stewart Jackson: We all believe in evidence-based policy making, rather than the anecdotal points that the hon. Gentleman is making. In that case, why did his Government, when they were in power, specifically prevent the publication of information in the form of research by the Department for Communities and Local Government that considered the impact of immigration on local services?

Chris Bryant: I do not have the faintest idea. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me, I will try to give him a better answer. Yes, my point is anecdotal, in that the Government have a figure for certain forms of accident and emergency doctor provision in the whole of the UK, and there is no shortage across the whole country, just in certain areas. That is why we may need some tweaking to ensure that we are able to maintain the services on which we all rely. There are similar issues in relation to nursing, not least because one of the elements of migration that we must bear in mind is that many British nurses—although no statistics have been provided since 2008—are choosing to work in countries such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia. It is therefore difficult for us to plan precisely.

Eilidh Whiteford: One of the challenges for the NHS is that many of the overseas students who come to study health sciences in our world-leading universities have been built into the staffing plans of our health services. That is partly where the gap comes from. I am concerned about the knock-on effect of our recruiting overseas and the brain drain from developing countries. It is important, however, that we do not pull the rug from under our NHS plans and those elsewhere in our public services.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Lady makes several fair points. She is right about not wanting to steal lots of doctors from other parts of the world, although
	people often want to work here for a few years and take their expertise back to developing countries—a positive contribution that we can make. At this very moment, the minor injuries unit in Llwynypia is closed because the accident and emergency unit at the Royal Glamorgan in south Wales is not able to recruit internationally. It has tried to recruit nationally several times, so there is a problem and we need to be able to plan for our services.
	Universities face similar issues, because—as the Minister said—it is vital that the brightest and the best come to the UK to study. If they do not, we will not have the best universities and the brain drain will continue and cause long-term productivity problems. That is why some of what the Minister is suggesting in relation to the university route—the right to study in the UK—is right, although I wonder whether some specific elements need tweaking. For instance, it is suggested that someone should be allowed to do a course for only five years, with no extension to six or seven years unless they are already earning £35,000, but junior doctors are on about £29,000 and staff doctors on £34,000. There is therefore a danger in the Government’s proposals.

Tristram Hunt: Is my hon. Friend aware of particular concerns in the Indian subcontinent about rules on studying in the UK whereby Indian students have to return immediately after graduation, when many of them would wish to spend a year working here to pay back their fee?

Chris Bryant: Of course there are concerns, but ensuring that students go home once they have completed their courses is an important part of what we need to do if we are to address migration issues. However, this should be based on evidence not on anecdote. My concern is that in some cases the evidence points to the fact that the vast majority of those doing further educational courses have every intention of returning and not of staying illegally.
	The Government have fallen for some easy answers and have made a mistaken promise. The Minister rather skirted over the Government’s commitment, which is to cut net migration to tens of thousands—no ifs, no buts, as the Prime Minister said. The Home Secretary also said that the aim was to reduce net migration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands by the end of this Parliament, saying “Listen very carefully, I shall say this only once”, in her best “‘Allo, ‘Allo” accent. The only problem is that actually the figures have gone up. In the year ending March 2010 the figure for net migration was 222,000, and the year to the end of March 2011 saw an increase to 245,000.
	The Minister said that there were only some parts of the equation that we could do anything about, but that he none the less remains committed to a net migration target. He can do something about net migration if he wants to persuade more British people to go and live elsewhere, but that is why we have some concerns about the precise way in which the Government have worded their target.
	In relation to those who want to come to this country to work, the Government have used rhetoric that makes it seem as though there is a cap of 20,700 in total, but in actual fact, in the 12 months from the third quarter
	of 2010, 158,180 work visas were issued. Similarly, the number of tier 2 applicants who were successful in obtaining visas is virtually identical to that for the year before. As the Minister said, his cap has not yet cut into the numbers because it is relatively generous, but what is the point of the cap if nobody has yet been refused because of it?
	In the first quarter since the new cap was introduced, 37,000 work visas were issued. The number of intra-company transfers, which the Minister condemned when we were in power, has gone up from 26,554 to 30,000 in July. My biggest anxiety about the Government’s record is illegal immigration. Contrary to the figures the Minister gave, the number of removals and voluntary deportations has been going down quite significantly since the general election. Between 2007 and 2010, the number was always above 60,000. In 2008, for example, 67,981 people were removed or voluntarily deported. In the nine months from January to September this year, the number was down to 38,865—a 12% fall on last year’s figures. There was no increase, as the Minister told us earlier, or as the Prime Minister said a few weeks ago. Indeed, the Prime Minister specifically said,
	“illegal immigrants, 10% increase in arrests”.—[Official Report, 9 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 278.]
	That is completely and utterly factually incorrect. The figures show that in the third quarter of last year, 4,730 people were arrested. This year, the figure is 4,141—a fall of 12%; not an increase.
	Similarly, the number of non-asylum cases refused entry at port and removed has fallen from roughly 7,000 a quarter to just 3,822 and a little bit more in each of the subsequent three quarters. In addition, this year the Government have engaged in an ill thought through and unconvincing pilot scheme, which effectively lowered the level at which our security was being guaranteed.
	I raise those figures because we need to be careful about the use of statistics by this Government, especially by this Minister. Sir Michael Scholar, who attacked the Minister for releasing inaccurate and deliberately misleading statistics on drug seizures, said:
	“The Statistics Authority considers that the fact and manner of the publication of the 4 November press release, in advance of the official statistics, was irregular and inconsistent with the statutory Code of Practice, and also with the Ministerial Code and published guidance on the handling of official statistics issued by the Cabinet Secretary.”
	In normal parlance, that means that the Minister has broken the rules and should be sacked. In essence, that is what Sir Michael Scholar is saying. He says quite precisely that the Minister has broken the ministerial code.
	When I wrote to Gus O’Donnell about this, he gave this answer in mandarin:
	“The Home Office press office has also given assurances to the Department’s Chief Statistician that it will work more closely with statisticians and analysts to ensure that this oversight will not happen again.”
	In other words, he is confessing that in the publication of statistics the Minister sought to mislead not this House but elsewhere.
	Of the eight named day questions that I tabled at the beginning of November, not one has been answered, despite the fact that it is a full month after the date when they should have been answered.
	I have some specific questions for the Minister. First, on family migration, what threshold income are the Government leaning towards for a person bringing in a dependant, and when will they announce it?
	Secondly, the NHS has no details of the number of staff coming into this country and being employed by it either from within the EU or from outside the EU. It is difficult to form a coherent strategy on NHS staffing or immigration until such statistics are produced. Will the Government set about doing so as soon as possible?
	Thirdly, has the Home Office done any specific analysis of the needs of accident and emergency departments around the country? The Migration Advisory Council is now suggesting that everyone on tier 2 visas should have a visa for only five years and that it should be non-renewable unless they are on £35,000 or more. Is that the view of the Government, and what effect do they think that will have on NHS staffing? Has any analysis been conducted of British nurses emigrating to other countries? Again, that is vital information if we want to ensure that we have proper staffing.
	In addition, the Home Office estimates that there will be 70,000 to 80,000 fewer students coming into this country because of the changes in provisions. What estimate has the Minister made of the financial effect on colleges around the country, and when precisely do they expect to be achieving those numbers?
	Furthermore, a consultation is under way on tier 5 of the points-based visa system, which proposes shortening visas from 24 months to 12 months. This scheme is largely used under the medical training initiative, which allows doctors from other parts of the world, particularly from developing parts of the world, to train in the NHS for two years. All those involved in the scheme say that if we were to cut the scheme to one year, people would not receive sufficient training to be effective when they go back.
	A consultation is under way on the domestic worker visa. As the Minister has said in previous debates, when people come in on this visa, they are tied to an employer; they are terrified and are in virtual domestic servitude. They are treated appallingly with uncertain hours and uncertain pay. If, as the consultation suggests, they are unable to change their employer in future, there is a real danger that we will be consigning more people to domestic servitude and to a more difficult situation. When will the Government announce their policy on that?
	My final question is on trafficking. Last year, the Association of Chief Police Officers stated that it was aware of 2,600 women being trafficked for sexual exploitation in this country—a much higher figure than the number dealt with in the system. Is it not time that we have a means of dealing with people once they have been trafficked and once the trafficking has already occurred in this country, and that we do more about using the Department for International Development’s budget and other budgets to ensure that people are not trafficked here in the first place?

Damian Green: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way after his long list of questions. I asked him one, and in half an hour he has not even addressed the central issue. Does he think that immigration is too high at the moment?

Chris Bryant: The Minister has not said whether he thinks the figures are too high. As the Prime Minister is all too happy to say on very many occasions, it is for him to answer questions; it is not for us to do so.
	We will support the Government on many things, but not on everything. We will support them when they seek to tighten the system against illegal immigration, international criminality and trafficking. We will also support them when they seek to ensure a robust and fair set of migration rules that do not undermine our economic prosperity or communal support for the system.

Nicholas Soames: Uncharacteristically, I am losing my voice. If it finally runs out, I shall just sit down.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for so clearly setting out the Government’s position. He has brought immeasurable good sense to this very difficult portfolio. When I think that 10 years ago, a Labour Minister at the Home Office, Beverley Hughes, described me as being a racist for even having an Adjournment debate on immigration, I can see that we have come a long way.
	As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, it is important that we can discuss this serious matter in a clear, open, sane and humane way. I regret having to say that over the years of the Labour Government, what was already a problem turned into a really, really serious problem, and this Government now have to put right something that is of great concern to an enormous number of our constituents. In those terms, I warmly welcome this debate and thank the Government for making time for it. That is a clear recognition by them of the widespread public concern about the scale of immigration to the United Kingdom.
	That concern was illustrated by the remarkable response to a Migrationwatch petition on the Downing street website calling for immigration to be kept below 70 million. One hundred thousand people signed it within a week. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and I are in touch with the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, about how this should be followed up, and we hope to have—indeed, the Committee has said that we can have—a specific debate early next year, after the Government have announced their measures on economic and family migration that are now under consideration.
	Today, however, I would like to make three broad points: first, that the Government’s policy objective is clearly the right one; secondly that migration to Britain can and must be reduced; and thirdly that encouraging the outflow of non-EU migrants who no longer have the right to remain in Britain will be the key to further progress once the first round of measures is in place.
	I congratulate the Government on their strategic decision to reduce the level of net migration to tens of thousands and on sticking to that objective. This is the first time in British history that any Government have had the courage to establish such a firm objective for immigration. Such an objective is essential. We need to be absolutely clear that after the rapid increase in immigration since 1997—a catastrophic public policy failure—we now face a fundamental choice: either we allow population growth to continue indefinitely, with
	all that it would imply for our public services, environment and society, or we take the firm and sometimes difficult measures to bring immigration under control.
	Governments in Britain have traditionally been reluctant to talk about the size of our population lest they be the butt of puerile references to Chinese birth control policy. Nevertheless, we must face the fact that two thirds of our population growth is now a result of immigration. Yet this is the only component that is potentially under Government control. If, therefore, population growth is to be kept within reasonable bounds, immigration simply has to be reduced—and reduced substantially.
	The most recent population projections from the Office for National Statistics underline that point. It has assumed that immigration will continue at a rate of 200,000 a year—about the average of the past 10 years—but if that level is allowed to continue, the UK population will hit 70 million in about 16 years and will continue rising indefinitely beyond that period. Given that neither of the other two components—the birth rate and the death rate—is likely to change very much in that period, this is a mathematical certainty.
	It is sometimes claimed that the ONS projections have been unreliable. The immigration lobby dines out on an error that the statisticians made nearly half a century ago at a range of 35 years. Methods have improved greatly since then. Nobody claims perfect accuracy but, in fact, over the past 50 years, and at a 20-year range, the ONS population projections have been accurate to plus or minus 2.5%.
	The figure of 70 million is not simply a round number; it is a marker by which we can judge the success or otherwise of our immigration policy. It also flags up for the public exactly what is involved. We are talking about an extra 7 million in 16 years, of which 5 million will be a direct or indirect result of immigration. The public are perfectly clear that they do not wish to see a population increase on anything like that scale, and it is therefore absolutely incumbent on the Government to take effective action.
	In seeking to take such action, the Government have been criticised for choosing net migration as the objective of immigration policy. It is suggested—correctly, of course—that the Government cannot control British emigration or immigration from the European Union. A glance at the numbers, however, shows that those two flows have generally cancelled each other out. It also shows that the real problem stems from an imbalance in migration from outside the European Union. For the last seven years, we have had something like 300,000 such immigrants every year while only 100,000 have left.

David Ward: I think that we all accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said about immigration from outside the EU and about how immigration from within the EU is not controllable, but does he not agree that the behaviour of many Governments towards some of their own citizens—principally the Roma —in some parts of Europe is increasing the pressure on them to leave those countries and come here, because we treat them a good deal better than their own countries do?

Nicholas Soames: That is probably self-evidently true but it does not alter the fact that the figures remain correct, as I have said.
	It is this 200,000 net migration of non-EU citizens that the Government can and must control. My second point, then, concerns how that control might be achieved. The focus must be on the largest flows: students, economic migration and marriage, in that order. Non-EU student visas are still being issued at a rate of almost 1,000 a day. There has clearly been massive abuse of this route, with literally hundreds of dubious colleges being closed down in recent years, and rightly so—I warmly commend my hon. Friend the Minister on the vigorous action that he has taken on this matter.
	Nobody disputes the benefit to the higher education sector and to the British economy more generally of foreign students who come to study here and who later return home—many of them as lifetime and greatly valued friends of Britain—but it seems to me that there are three main problems associated with this area of immigration: first, in spite of the Government’s efforts so far, there might still be a number of bogus courses and colleges being used by students; secondly students are still allowed to do too many courses and a number of repeat courses; and thirdly a number of students, although here legally, overstay at the conclusion of their courses.
	Bogus students are a serious problem. At the end of the day, they come here to work illegally and send money home, and in doing so they undercut British workers and allow unscrupulous employers to compete unfairly with employers who provide a decent wage and decent conditions. The Government are absolutely right to crack down on this abuse, but they now need to go further and ensure that in countries of immigration concern students are interviewed at posts overseas to ensure that they are genuine and that they intend to return home after their course.
	Those are the two critical tests, but the present box-ticking system severely constrains the ability of entry clearance officers to conduct them and act on their findings. That must change and change soon. I also suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that the UK Border Agency be instructed to visit many more of these colleges so that it can truly satisfy itself as to the infrastructure, staff and validity of the courses being taught. This is a major problem and I know that he is dealing with it with great vigour.
	The second largest inflow is of economic migrants, and here I must stress that we must be extremely careful not to impede the economic recovery on which everything depends. British and international firms must know that they can bring essential staff into this country to develop and expand their businesses. They must also have stability and predictability if they are to operate effective personnel policies. Fortunately, the Government have taken that into account in allowing intra-company transfers of senior staff with no restriction on numbers. They have also provided 20,000 or so work permits a year, of which, under the current economic circumstances, only about half have been taken up. The Government are also now proposing to break the previously almost automatic link between gaining a work permit and achieving permanent settlement in Britain. That is a fundamental step and is a suggestion originally put forward by the cross-party group on balanced migration, which I co-chair with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. The details still need to be worked out, and we anxiously await the Minister’s decision. However, we
	believe that the proposal will provide a means of meeting the needs of employers while also limiting the impact on population growth.
	I suspect that much of the concern in the business community has stemmed from the interim arrangements put in place shortly after the election, which caused a great deal of confusion. The longer-term arrangements should now be allowed to settle down, to ensure, as I have mentioned, the predictability and stability that, in practice, are so important to both employers and employees. There should be no more talk at all about whether Britain is “open for business”. Of course it is: it always has been and it always will be. The 40 million foreign citizens who arrive in Britain every year are surely firm evidence of that. Not only is such talk is wrong; it also damages the interests of business and this country.
	The third major route is the family route. Clearly there can be no question of preventing British citizens from entering into genuine marriages with foreign nationals. However, the public interest is engaged when they propose to live in the UK. The Government are clearly right to ensure that those who choose to make their married life here should have enough English on arrival to participate from the outset in our community. I wholly endorse the remarks of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, who is very sorry that he cannot be here tonight. He has made the point that there are large areas in this country where no integration has taken place, to the great disadvantage of the communities concerned, the communities surrounding them and the people living there who are not part of those communities. Those problems will cause great social disturbance in this country unless dealt with sensitively but firmly. We must ensure proper integration in future. The Government are also right to question whether the taxpayer should, in effect, subsidise marriage to a foreign partner. In addition, measures are needed to deal with cases where young people come under severe social pressure to marry someone resident abroad. More effective use of interviews could help in such cases, which fall short of forced marriage, but only just.
	Thirdly, and lastly, the announcement of Government policies early next year will complete the first round of measures to address the scale of immigration. We must then watch how the numbers develop. There is, however, an important aspect to which we must shortly turn our attention. I refer to the outflow of non-EU migrants, which, as I mentioned earlier, has been substantially less than the inflow. That is due to large numbers staying on in Britain, either legally, by extending their stays, or illegally. We need to ensure that those extending their stay are doing so for valid reasons. The new Home Office policy of requiring students to progress to a higher level of study before their stay can be extended is a step forward. We also need much more effective measures to deter and remove those who no longer have any right to be here.
	I have gone into a certain amount of detail, because this, as so often, is where the devil resides. However, we must not lose sight of the wider picture. Over the last 15 years, we have issued something like 2 million visas a year, but have had no record of individuals as they have arrived and departed. As a result, the Government have no idea who is in this country or why they came in the first place. A clear set of policies is now being instituted to attend to that. They must succeed. Failure would
	mean losing control over the scale and, indeed, the fundamental nature of our very society. We are also in serious danger of losing public confidence in the Government’s ability to protect and control our borders. That is a fundamental duty of Government which must be most resolutely addressed.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. Let me again tell my hon. Friend the Minister that I applaud the way in which he is tackling this difficult problem.

Julian Brazier: It is a huge pleasure and honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), who has spoken out on this issue again and again, including when abuse was heaped on anyone who tried to do so. I also praise my hon. Friend the Minister, who has brought great energy to one of the most difficult briefs in Government. What I am about to say will be pretty bleak, frankly, but not one word of it should be taken as a criticism of the huge amount of energy and intellect that he has brought to his job.
	It is curious, looking through one’s postbag, how many of the pressing issues facing Britain today—housing shortages, congestion on roads and public transport, water shortages, pressures on public infrastructure of every kind—derive largely from a single, common factor: population growth, to which my right hon. Friend referred. We are one of the most densely populated countries in the world, with 255 people per square kilometre. During the time of the last Labour Government, immigration policies encouraged an unprecedented influx from EU and non-EU countries, which has boosted populations in some urban areas to near crisis point. Between 1997 and 2009, after deducting the number of those leaving, more than 2 million extra people were recorded as settling in the UK, a surge that is unprecedented. However, for the first time, those figures were calculated without using embarkation records, so the true figure may be much higher. The ONS projections to which my right hon. Friend referred have been upgraded again and again. For example, in 2004 they indicated that by the middle of this century our population would reach 67 million. In just three years that projection was increased to 77 million, and it continues to rise.
	I believe we need to look at gross rather than net migration figures, for several reasons. First, many of those leaving are elderly people, looking to spend their retirement abroad in the sun. In contrast, the vast majority of immigrants are young. First-generation immigrants typically have large families compared with indigenous families. There is a further, obvious point, which was well understood in this country until the middle of the last century, which is that because we are basically overcrowded we always used to have more people leaving, precisely to find homes in emptier lands. Today, housing pressures are caused by domestic factors, such as family breakdown, increased longevity and so on, which have led to smaller household sizes, so if we do not have a degree of net emigration, we will have to keep building more and more.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman’s last comment—that the reason many British people have gone around the world and settled elsewhere is because Britain is
	overcrowded—is factually wrong. The parts of the country from which many people left—Scotland and Wales—are the least crowded. In fact, they mostly went because there were no jobs in this country or, originally, because of religious persecution. It is nothing to do with overcrowding.

Julian Brazier: One can go back quite a long way, into religious persecution and earlier history, but we were very keen to encourage, for example, the Australians to keep an assisted package programme going for nearly two thirds of the last century. Much of that was precisely to reduce overcrowding. There was also a degree of internal re-location—for example, with the setting up of new towns outside London—but we encouraged movement abroad, as well as out of our major cities.
	Everybody agrees that previous generations of immigrants have brought huge benefits, in such fields as business, science, sports and the arts. We all have friends from a variety of different communities. My family has particularly benefited from a doctor, without whom two of my sons would not be alive today, who is a recent immigrant. However, few people recognise the sheer impact of population growth on our country today, and I want to focus on two issues: housing and infrastructure.
	The most serious social and economic issue facing middle and lower middle-income families in Britain today is the shortage of housing, and not just in the south-east where land is at the highest premium. The huge inflows of population that took place under the last Government are going to require very large releases of land, much of it countryside, even without any further population growth. Our house prices today, despite some fall from the peak during the recession, remain very high by international standards and, crucially, in relation to our falling incomes.
	As the Prime Minister pointed out the other day, the average age of first-time buyers has risen to 37. Many families are now burdened for much longer than ever before with heavy mortgages, so adults have to work longer hours and for more years in an attempt to service those mortgages. An OECD survey showed a few years ago that a higher proportion of people in this country feel they are working more hours than are good for their family life than people in any other major country in the developed world.
	Shelter paints an equally bleak picture of the rental market. More than half of local authorities in England have a median private rent for a two-bedroom house that costs more than 35% of median take-home pay. Families are forced to cut their spending on essentials—food, heating or whatever—to pay the cost of rent or the mortgage.
	The Government have set out plans to revive building, which was at an all-time low at the end of the last Government, but that will have the knock-on effect of causing huge problems for infrastructure. The Environment Agency, for example, estimates that 5 million people live in flood-risk areas in England and Wales, and as climate change accelerates, that number will no doubt rise. Yet in a county like mine—Kent—the majority of all land that does not fall into a protected category is now on floodplains, so much of the building we are going to have to provide to cope with our existing population,
	including the rise caused by the bulge in immigration, will have to be built on precious protected land or else more communities will have to be exposed to the dangers of flooding.
	Water supplies in many parts of the country are under strain, too. In fact, our national average per capita is now lower than that of Spain and Portugal. As more water is abstracted from aquifers and rivers, the flow in rivers falls, killing wildlife and scarring the countryside.
	Immigration is putting considerable pressure on our schools, too. A report by London Councils stated that on current projections, London is 18,000 places short. It is not just London. Between 1998 and 2010, the proportion of children in primary schools in England for whom English is not the first language very nearly doubled to 16%, and in inner London native English-speaking children are in the minority. The noble Lord Knight, until recently a Labour Education Minister, admitted that
	“undoubtedly there can be problems”
	in schools with large numbers of non-English speakers. That is massively to understate the handicap suffered by all the other children in those schools.
	The number of arrivals from overseas registering with a GP has increased dramatically. One of the hardest hit NHS specialties has been midwifery, as birth rates have risen most sharply in areas where numbers of immigrants are high. When Labour came to power in 1997, one baby in eight was born to a foreign-born mother. That has now risen to one in four.
	My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration has put it well: the real questions are how Britain can benefit most from immigration and what controls do we need to maximise those benefits and minimise the strains. The last Labour Government—we still have not had an answer from the shadow Minister as to whether he believes immigration is too high—maintained that immigration was good for Britain and the British economy as a whole since immigrants boosted GDP. Of course it is true that on average immigrants pay more tax than they receive in benefits or consume in public services. Many, especially the kind of immigrants who came through in generations before Labour opened the borders, make a gigantic contribution, but taking an average disguises the bottom end of the spectrum.
	Many of those who arrived in Britain under the last Government, particularly from the Asian subcontinent, were unskilled and joined often insular communities in which incomes were already low and in some cases the unemployment rate was near to 50%. Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, for example, were those most likely to enter the UK through the family route after the primary purpose rule was dropped.
	Baroness Flather, the first Asian woman to receive a peerage, caused outrage when she made a brave speech in the House of Lords. She said:
	“The minority communities in this country, particularly the Pakistanis and the Bangladeshis, have a very large number of children and the attraction is the large number of benefits that follow the child.”
	She went on to say:
	“Nobody likes to accept that or to talk about it because it is supposed to be very politically incorrect.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 September 2011; Vol. 730, c. 706.]
	Of course it is true here as in countries all over the world that the trend is for birth rates in ethnic groups that integrate to go towards the national average. The problem, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) has pointed out, is that under the last Government we grew significant numbers of communities where there was no integration and no trend in birth rates or anything else towards the national norm. The whole economic argument has largely ignored the costs to the overburdened public purse in infrastructure and the loss of quality of life to the population, as overcrowding worsens.
	There are powerful voices that welcome continued heavy immigration. Big business benefits from the arrival of large numbers of people willing to work, since they drive down the cost of labour at the expense of the living standards of the indigenous workforce; and the wives of the better-off are able to get help in the home at a fraction of a living wage for local people, but then they and their families are not usually struggling to pay their mortgages and watching their children’s education being destroyed in schools with dozens of languages.

David Ward: The hon. Gentleman has made two references to education and attainment in schools, about which I know something. There is no evidence that indigenous children for whom English is the first language suffer as a result of the presence of children with other first languages. The evidence to support that view is just not there.

Julian Brazier: I have just quoted the words of a former Labour Education Minister, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman if he would like me to find a study for him.

Stewart Jackson: I am afraid that the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) is incorrect. There is evidence to suggest that. The Minister acknowledged in a Westminster Hall debate earlier this year that children without English as their first language are 19% less likely to succeed in key stage 2 SATs. That is an important issue, particularly for primary schools.

Julian Brazier: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall not repeat the powerful point my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex made about students, but there is a very real issue to consider. At a time when the domestic take-up of degree courses is likely to shrink sharply, I suspect that the problem will grow more acute.
	Middle-income and lower middle-income Britain is hurting: with long working hours, high levels of debt and rising prices in so many sectors, people struggle to meet their mortgages and rent payments and they see their standard of living eroded. There is a severe shortage of homes, and overcrowding in many schools, hospitals and prisons, too. We are trying to cope with the strains of a growing population. Infrastructure is also desperately overstretched in so many ways, with issues of flooding, water supplies, roads and land preservation looming.
	We all recognise the huge contribution that moderate levels of immigration have made to this country in the past. I welcome the measures that Ministers and the Government have taken. I would argue, however, that the coalition has a long way to go on this issue. The
	heavy criticism from big business and elements from the left must not put them off. It is time to recognise that we must take much stronger action if we want to head off the most severe social consequences and a backlash orchestrated by some unattractive people in the extremes—not just from indigenous people, but increasingly from many concerned people in our settled ethnic minority communities.

Mark Simmonds: I recognise—as did the Minister—the significant historical benefits that immigration has brought to this country. However, I strongly agree with the direction of Government policy in this regard. I agree about the necessity to reduce the number of immigrants to tens of thousands by the end of the current Parliament, the necessity for migrants to be able to converse in the English language, and the necessity to clamp down on clear abuses, particularly those relating to student visas. I fear that yet more may need to be done if we are to get a grip on the issue, given that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) rightly pointed out—or intimated—abuses are still happening in the system.
	During the 18 months or so for which he has been in his post, the Minister has made a significant and positive contribution by trying to address major challenges following an almost complete abdication of responsibility in the years during which the Labour party did not even attempt to control immigration. The word “unlimited”, used by the Minister, encapsulates those years very clearly and accurately. However, we need a sophisticated approach in order not to deter people who constitute highly skilled additions to our work force, particularly in research science. I am thinking especially of stem cell research, the pharmaceutical industry and other scientific technologies about which I know there is great concern. We also need a sophisticated, and detailed, approach if we are not to deter students who genuinely come to the United Kingdom to gain some of their education, especially those from the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China who may be our future trading partners—or future political leaders, or other significant figures in those economies. They are the people who will go home and have a positive impact on their own countries in relation to the UK.

Eilidh Whiteford: The Scottish universities, which are mostly research-led ancient institutions, are competing with Canadian and Australian universities—the best universities in the world—for the best students. They are concerned about the tone of the Government’s new approach, fearing that it will deter students before they have even gone through the visa process.

Mark Simmonds: I understand the concern felt by the hon. Lady and the Scottish universities. I know that there is also concern about some of the main research universities in England, which I share. However, I do not agree with the hon. Lady about the Government’s tone. I think that the tone of the Immigration Minister has been absolutely right: it has been considered, thoughtful, measured and calm. The Minister has tried to strike the important balance between ensuring that we control immigration and ensuring that the right people come to the UK.
	I want to make a slightly different contribution to the debate. Rather than talking about immigration in generic terms, I intend to talk—unashamedly and unapologetically —about my constituency, and about the impact that immigration has had on Boston. I do not mean immigration from outside the EU; I mean immigration within the EU and, in particular, from the A8 countries.
	Let me explain to those who do not know the Lincolnshire town of Boston that its economy is focused primarily on agriculture, horticulture and the food-processing sectors, and on tangential businesses such as haulage. For some time migrant labour has been essential to the efficient working of the agricultural economy—not just in the fields but in the pack houses—and, increasingly, to that of the tourism industry on the east Lincolnshire coast.
	My personal view is that those who have come from within the EU and are here legally and legitimately, paying taxes and making a contribution, should be welcomed into our communities, and that their contribution should be recognised. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), was right to acknowledge that a mistake was made back in 2004 when this country did not adopt the derogation that was adopted by many other EU countries. That has, without question, exacerbated what was already a difficult problem. We must also ensure that migrants from within the EU who come here primarily to work are not exploited, and those who have been involved in stopping that exploitation—particularly the Gangmasters Licensing Authority—should be congratulated on their work. However, none of us must underestimate the pressures and strains on communities and those responsible for trying to deliver our public services.
	When a country’s needs are assessed, the fundamental tenet must be the population of a particular area. I have long argued that public sector funding formulas do not reflect the population of my community, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) has advanced the same argument in relation to his constituency. That is just as true of Boston as it is of Peterborough. The problem has been exacerbated by the last Labour Government’s manipulation of the formulae to enable them deliberately to transfer resources away from rural communities.
	The House may be interested to know that in its recent report the Office for National Statistics acknowledges that the previous basis for calculating migration numbers—the labour force survey—was not good at capturing migration trends. The ONS uses a much more accurate assessment, event though I believe that it too is an underestimate. It includes calculations of national insurance numbers and flag 4, the patients’ register. Those data take account of children and of people over 65, which the labour force survey did not. It also acknowledges that only 50% of the migrant population register with a GP, and that one third of migrants may be missed. In other words, it already acknowledges that the new statistics that it produced about a month ago were an underestimate.
	It used to be very difficult to base the numbers on evidence, but at last the ONS is starting to get to grips with the process. Its report confirms that between 2005 and 2010, the figure for Boston’s cumulative immigration was revised upwards to 218%, and that figure, which is the highest in the country, is not reflected in any funding
	formula. It is more than twice the percentage increase in the next local authority area, and that too is not reflected in any funding formula.
	Boston is the only local authority outside London that has featured in the figures for the top 20 increases in immigration in each of the last five years. That is not reflected in any funding formula. Boston is second only to Newham in percentage terms when it comes to upward revisions of the 2010 mid-year population estimates. That is not reflected in any of the public sector funding formulae. The published projected population increase in the borough of Boston was 0.4% but, according to the latest ONS report, the actual figure is 8.7%. As I have said, I believe that that is an underestimate. None of that is reflected in the funding formulae. That raises serious questions about the capacity of infrastructure to cope and the efficient provision of public services.
	There is a significant mismatch between the population and the funding that is supposed to cope, which leads to stress and tension in communities. I wish to give the House three specific examples of the impact, the first of which relates to the Lincolnshire police authority. Some in this House with long memories will recall the riots that took place in Boston in 2004, which were partially but not solely driven by migration issues and pressures. In November this year, a proposal was made for an anti-immigration march in Boston, to be organised by those with local concerns about the scale of migration. I must put on the record the fact that the organisers reflected responsibly on this when they heard that the anti-fascist league was going to march at the same time and that their march was sucking in extreme and far-right individuals who would not have been welcome in Boston.
	Complex policing issues and additional costs are not reflected in the funding formula: community tensions; significant crime and disorder issues, although it must be said that the vast majority of crime in Boston and Lincolnshire is still committed by UK citizens; additional costs for interpreter services—6,500 hours’ worth in Lincolnshire in the 2010-11 financial year; and significant road policing issues, such as a lack of insurance and people not understanding our drink-driving laws. That is all in the context of Lincolnshire having the lowest number of police officers per head in the country and the lowest funding of any police force.
	The second area that I wish to discuss is the health service. The proportion of births to non-UK mothers has more than doubled in Boston since 2001. That trend suggests that an increasing number of migrants are not transient and are choosing to settle in Boston and in Lincolnshire with their families. In 2001, 5% of babies in Boston were born to non-UK mothers, whereas the figure is now 35%—significantly above the national average—and 81% of those are from EU accession countries. That trend is accelerating, not decelerating. Last year, the borough of Boston had its largest number of national insurance registrations—nearly 2,500—with Lithuania and Latvia topping the nationality poll.
	That creates pressures: migrant populations finding it difficult to access health services and mental health services, with all the subsequent, associated challenges; enormous strain on the sexual and reproductive health services; greater pressure on community services; language barriers; major causes of morbidity and mortality, which are especially driven by lifestyle choices; and severe pressure of local health service utilisation, especially at
	general practitioner surgeries and at accident and emergency attendances when migrant populations do not know how to access primary care.
	The third and final example that I wish to give the House relates to the pressures on Boston borough council, which estimates that at least 10,000 more migrants are living in the borough than the official statistics state—The Times guide to the House of Commons estimates that there are 17,500 more. Considerable issues arise as a result, some of which relate to licensing, because operators from central and eastern Europe are now opening their own shops. They are of course welcome and perfectly entitled to do that, but they must operate within the law and they do not necessarily understand the law relating to the sale of alcohol. Several stores have had to be closed, and hon. Members will remember the tragedy that took place just before the summer recess when five migrants were killed in my constituency when an illegal still exploded. Other issues that have to be addressed relate to unlicensed taxis; environmental health—those issues are too numerous to mention, but they include the safety, origin, preparation and storage of food; a significant increase in noise complaints; antisocial behaviour; and illegal campers—single male foreign nationals of no fixed abode.
	One of the real problems we have in Boston relates to the very good point that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) made about housing. The houses in multiple occupation are a significant problem, particularly in the small streets with terraced housing that occupy the centre of the historic town in Boston. The council is hopelessly insufficiently resourced to deal with it and with the associated car parking and van parking problems.
	Other hon. Members have dealt with the issue of primary education, so I have not even mentioned it. However, there are two or three primary schools in the centre of Boston where 50% of the pupils have English as a second language, and that causes intense educational issues. To be fair, the schools have had some support from Lincolnshire county council, but they require more.
	In conclusion, Ministers must focus both on reducing net migration and on providing resources and support to communities with large EU-migrant populations—that is not regularly discussed. Ministers must adjust public sector funding formulae, insisting on accurate and fair funding that reflects the populations that are actually in a geographical area. I sometimes hear the argument that it is too complex to open the funding formulae up again. I do not accept that argument and the ONS report makes it very clear in which areas populations have dropped. We need to acknowledge that there must be a balance between populations and funding formulae and in the borough of Boston the imbalance is acute because there are insufficient resources to deal with the much-needed economic migration to drive economic growth in rural Lincolnshire.

Tom Brake: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds). He was perfectly right to draw attention to the time lag and the failure of funding formulae to adjust to cope with a different local demographic locally—a point that both our parties used to raise in opposition, and rightly so.
	I do not want to prolong the debate about schools—the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) has just left the Chamber—but I benefited from an education in a French state school, where half the pupils spoke a foreign language, so I think that it is not the number of children with a mother tongue, per se, but the level of investment that is relevant.
	I welcome today’s debate. The Liberal Democrats have not been scared of debating immigration. In the past, that has perhaps worked to our disadvantage and it might have been advantageous had we not debated the matter quite so openly. A number of Members highlighted the fact that the mainstream parties’ failure to be willing to debate such matters created a vacuum that others occupied. We are collectively reclaiming that ground and enabling measured debates to take place.
	I shall not criticise Labour Members as I know that there are many demands on their time, but I am a little surprised by the rather sparse attendance on the Opposition Benches for this critical debate.

Chris Bryant: We went for quality.

Tom Brake: The Front-Bench spokesman makes a point about quality, but quality can also come from Back Benchers in some circumstances.

Chris Bryant: You only have two.

Tom Brake: I am not going to prolong the debate that I am having with the hon. Gentleman from his sedentary position—he can calculate the percentages in respect of the parties represented here tonight.
	I welcome the fact that almost the Minister’s first words pointed out the benefits that immigrants bring to this country, as in a measured debate the benefits and disbenefits of immigration are discussed. I welcome the action the coalition Government have taken to close down some of the illegal routes used to get into the UK jobs market, especially the action taken to speed up the asylum process. It works to everybody’s advantage, including asylum seekers here, if that process deals with cases rapidly rather than allowing things to drag on for years. At the risk of offending my coalition partners, I must point out that that issue was not particularly linked to the previous Labour Government and that, historically, there have been issues with addressing asylum claims swiftly. Soon after I was elected in 1997—other Members who were elected at that time will remember this—I found that I was hearing about cases that had been under review for a number of years. I am pleased that we are now on top of that process.
	I do not want to make general points about immigration, but I have a couple of specific points. Appropriately, the Minister mentioned the Lille issue and the attempts to enter the UK without the appropriate documentation. I hope that the Government have looked at whether other routes are being used in that way and whether, as new transport links are set up, other routes might suffer from that problem. I hope that we are addressing that issue.
	The Minister pointed out that the coalition Government have dealt significantly with a blot on Labour’s record—the number of children being detained. We have largely addressed the detention of children pre-departure, but there might still be an issue with reducing the number of
	children detained on entry to the UK and the length of time for which they are detained. Some organisations have suggested that there should be no detention of children on entry, but that would mean operating an open border policy, which the Government, rightly, are not doing. If that policy were adopted, it might lead to children being trafficked here by people who were not their parents. The Government should aim to minimise the number of children detained on arrival in the UK who have to be returned.
	The biggest challenge for the Government is, perhaps, that of overstayers and people who are already here illegally. The Minister has set out a number of measures that the Government are taking in that respect. There is still a major issue regarding the number of employers being prosecuted. As long as employers are willing to employ people illegally, that will act as a magnet, so any other activities that the Government can undertake in that area would be very welcome.
	The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness said that we need a flexible system of immigration to ensure that we have the skills we need coming into the UK. The Minister might be aware of some recent research by the London chamber of commerce and industry, which found that nearly a quarter of the companies that responded to the survey had looked outside the EU for staff because they believed that employing a non-EU migrant would help them to grow into markets beyond the EU. It will be to the advantage of the UK and our export-led recovery if, on occasion, we allow people with appropriate skills from non-EU countries to enter the UK jobs market.
	The Government are looking at safeguards for overseas domestic workers. Members might be aware that it is often very difficult for domestic workers who are brought here and, in different ways, abused by an employer to get out of what sometimes amounts to unpaid servitude. I welcome the fact that the Government are looking at this, and I hope that we will be given some information tonight or later about the safeguards that the Government are looking at introducing for overseas domestic workers who experience abuse from their employer.

Chris Bryant: There are two suggestions on the table: that the visa should be completely abolished, and that an employee would be tied to the employer who brought them in and would not be able to change employer. Surely the second of those suggestions would make it more likely that people would be caught in servitude.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his pertinent intervention. The Government need to explain what safeguards will be in place for a worker who comes here, is linked to one employer and has no alternative but to work for them.
	We need an immigration system that is flexible, fair and secure, and the coalition Government are moving swiftly in that direction. Our ability to sell to the wider population the benefits of immigration that is helpful to the UK depends on the coalition Government being able to demonstrate that we, and not the people traffickers, are deciding who comes to the United Kingdom.

Stewart Jackson: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). Much of the discussion in the debate tonight is based on anecdote. One of the problems is that we have not had an opportunity recently to look at fact-based evidence. We can all unite around the idea that if we do not debate these issues in a moderate and mainstream way, the extremists will polarise people and drive wedges between our communities. They would like nothing better than to propagate violence, hatred and dislike among communities of different ethnic groups, religions, creeds and so on.
	Not since the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs undertook a proper analysis in 2008 has there been such a study enabling us to identify the costs and benefits of large-scale immigration. It would be remiss of those on the Government Benches not to mention the lamentable policy of the previous Government. I hope the shadow Minister or his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) will come to the Dispatch Box to ask the philosophical question that will inform Labour’s view, if it is developing policy to be a future Government—whether it believes that immigration is too high or not. That is a question that voters are entitled to ask and to which they are entitled to receive an answer.
	I pay tribute to the work of the cross-party group on balanced migration and the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), who have done a great job, ably supported by Migrationwatch. For nine years Migrationwatch has ploughed a lonely furrow, having been traduced as racist and as having some kind of hidden agenda to propagate community discord. Nevertheless, it has concentrated on the facts and more often than not been right in raising the tenor of the debate and allowing mainstream politicians to debate in a meaningful way based on facts.
	The facts have not been good for the previous Government. It has fallen to the present Government to clear up the mess and the legacy of uncontrolled, unrestricted immigration. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, 2.2 million people net entered the country between 1997 and 2009. We have not yet had a proper analysis of that, although in fairness the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) was honest enough to say after the general election, about the immigration from eastern Europe, that
	“there has also been a direct impact on the wages, terms and conditions of too many people . . . in communities ill-prepared to deal with the reality of globalisation, including the one I represent. . . As Labour seeks to rebuild trust with the British people, it is important we are honest about what we got wrong.”
	If I was a cynic, I would say that is because the Opposition lost the election, but people now look to them to put flesh on the bones and to develop the mea culpa of the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood.

Chris Bryant: Having heard many confessions in my time, I am not going to give a lengthy mea culpa. We have already said that immigration was too high, which was in part because we got the element resulting from countries joining the European Union wrong and did not introduce a points-based system soon enough. In
	answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, yes of course we think that immigration has been too high and that it should be lower.

Stewart Jackson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, but there is a more insidious element to Labour’s proposals and its record in office, which was articulated by Mr Andrew Neather, a speech writer for Tony Blair, who was famously quoted as saying that the idea was to rub the right’s nose in mass immigration in order to make a political point. It was a systematic policy of mass migration pursued by the previous two Prime Ministers and the Labour Administration.

Chris Bryant: rose—

Stewart Jackson: I will make some further progress.
	The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee found in its report on immigration, the most comprehensive such report brought before Parliament in the past 10 years, that
	“we have found no evidence for the argument… that net immigration… generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population… The overall fiscal impact of immigration is likely to be small”.
	That might be true, but we do not know because there has not been a sufficiently robust analysis, which would be interesting, by either the Government or other academic bodies. What is certainly not in doubt is the public support we have for pursuing a robust, fair and transparent immigration policy. Last month YouGov polled the British public and found that, on a proposal to restrict net migration to 40,000 a year, which would prevent this country’s population growing to 70 million by 2027, 69% supported the idea and only 12% opposed it.
	I support the range of policies pursued by the Minister, whose has been open and collaborative on the concerns that hon. Members have in their constituencies, for example on student visas, family migration, income thresholds, language proficiency, temporary workers and promoted integration. However, I wish to speak in a similar vein to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), who in a measured, well-argued and intellectually coherent contribution identified the issue we have in Peterborough, although I will not reiterate his points exactly.
	Let me tell hon. Members a little about education. I secured a debate in Westminster Hall, to which the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb) replied, in which I proposed incorporating the number of pupils for whom English is an additional language as a key factor in the pupil premium. In those areas where there are pressures specifically as a result of eastern European migration—there are probably fewer than two dozen such areas—the need for extra resources as a result of language difficulties should be factored in. For example, in the academic year 2010, of the 528 pupils at Beeches primary school in the central ward of Peterborough, only six spoke English as their first language. There are many such schools in Peterborough, although not necessarily at that level, but close to it. That will inevitably have a massive impact on educational attainment simply because the resources needed to bring all those children up to the appropriate standard will be significant.
	Another concern relating to education that we must not forget is churn. Many of the low-wage and low-skilled people who work in horticulture, agriculture and food processing and packaging in Boston and Peterborough come here for short periods, which disrupts their children’s education. For instance, overall in Peterborough, 4,767 pupils—31%—did not have English as their first language. Of 2,103 pupils with key stage 2 results, 21% were not in the city at the beginning of their school year, and 22%, or 450 pupils, were in the foundation stage but were not put in for key stage 2 SATs. That one simple example is important in terms of the training, expertise, skills and knowledge of the teachers required to teach those children.
	I shall draw the Minister’s attention to some specific issues. On the A2 accession of Bulgaria and Romania and, particularly, the moratorium on the free movement of labour, it would not be appropriate to change in 2013 our policy on that restriction. It is an extremely important issue, because the potential mass migration of large numbers of low-wage and low-skilled people from Romania and Bulgaria would have a significantly negative effect on the UK labour market in 2013, and I welcome the preliminary findings of the Migration Advisory Committee in making that clear to Ministers. Serious consideration should be given to derogation for a further period—perhaps to 2015 or 2017.
	On the inter-relationship between the Home Office and the Department for Work and Pensions, we must clarify the issue of the right to reside and the habitual residence test, particularly the operation of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006. The House of Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, in its 26th report, found that the DWP had done insufficient work in looking at the impact and ramifications of the end of the workers registration scheme, and that is important in terms of people’s access to benefits such as jobseeker’s allowance, pension credit and child tax credit.
	I am concerned, too, about the European Commission infringement proceedings and its reasoned opinion, which essentially breaks the social contract, established over many years in this country, that one does not receive benefits unless one has a demonstrable link to this country and has paid taxes to this country. I draw the House’s attention in particular to the case of Mrs Patmalniece, a Latvian woman who claimed pension credit, having never worked a single day in this country. That cannot be right for my constituents or for the constituents of any hon. Member.
	I am concerned also about criminal records data in the European Union, because in respect of sharing such data we are not properly using regulation 19(1B), which came into effect in June 2009 as an amendment to the 2006 regulations. If we are using it, we are doing so reactively. It is not right that someone with a criminal record can get on a coach in Lithuania and turn up in Boston, Peterborough or any other urban or rural centre in the United Kingdom.

Mark Simmonds: My hon. Friend is, as always, making a well informed and articulate contribution. Is he aware of the recent case in my constituency, where a Lithuanian gentleman, who had been convicted in Lithuania of an axe murder, turned up in Boston and killed a lady, and that it was not until he was convicted in a British court that the information came out? My hon. Friend is
	making the pertinent point that we should put in place structures to stop people with such convictions entering the UK in the first place.

Stewart Jackson: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention.
	I know the Minister will tell us that the Schengen information system, SIS II, is coming down the line, and that we will be able to share criminal records data across all 27 nations of the European Union, but that will not happen until 2015. We have the power at the moment under regulation 19(1B) to exclude people in respect of public policy, public security and public health, and we should look again at being much more pro-active in that respect.
	Non-European Union immigration is a massively important issue on which we made a bond of trust in our manifesto at the election. It was the No. 1 issue on the doorstep in my constituency. Let us not forget the important impact of eastern European immigration on local authorities, health authorities, primary care trusts and police services across the country. The Government are doing a good job and going in the right direction. We need a policy towards immigration that is based on fairness to individuals and to the taxpayer, and we need transparency. Above all else, we need to clear up the appalling legacy left to us by the previous Government.

Christopher Pincher: I must admit that I was planning not to take part in this debate because very little has been said with which I disagree, but I decided not to let that stop me, so I shall continue and make some generic points as briefly as I can. It is unfortunate and ironic that so few Members are present for this important debate, which is of concern to many of our constituents, but I put that down to what one might call statement fatigue. I trust that it in no way reflects on the stellar cast of speakers on both Front Benches from whom we have heard and will hear during the course of the evening.
	We all know that this is a very important debate. When we speak to our constituents on the doorstep or on the phone, or meet them in our surgeries, we know that they are concerned about immigration. I recently ran a survey in my constituency, and I would say that about seven in 10 people mentioned immigration as one of their top five concerns. It is an issue that our constituents talk about, but for a very long time we in this place have not talked about it. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), and to organisations such as Migrationwatch UK for wresting this issue from the arms of extreme, unsavoury voices and bringing it back into the mainstream, where it should properly be debated. I hope that we shall continue, year after year, to debate it in this Chamber in order to represent the very real concerns of our constituents.
	There is no doubt in my mind that immigration has enriched our country culturally and intellectually. People have come here and founded businesses, employed people, and created empires. They have helped us to become the country that we are; we are a nation of immigrants.
	However, we have, over a number of years, allowed the notion—the myth—to grow up that there is some unalloyed benefit in allowing uncontrolled immigration to our country.
	The hidden economic costs of uncontrolled immigration are becoming clear. We are told that cheap labour is a good thing—and of course immigrants are cheap. They do the jobs that nobody else wants to do, they take a wage that nobody else wants to take, and they keep costs down. However, although uncontrolled immigration may put a cap on wage inflation, it also puts a cap on productivity. Businesses that can benefit from cheap workers have no incentive to be more productive. In the long term, that is not a sensible economic model. I hope that the Government will take further action to crack down on businesses that use illegal immigrants—to find them and to make sure that those illegal immigrants are deported in order to send a message that there is no future and no profit in this sort of thing.
	The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) recognised the phenomenon that is created by the large volume of cheap labour in his constituency. It creates resentment among hard-working workers and jobseekers who cannot get a job or the wage that they would like because of the volume of immigrants. Polly Toynbee, hardly an acolyte of the right, has also complained about that phenomenon. The House of Lords, hardly a home of the left, has recognised that large-scale immigration can have an impact, particularly on youth unemployment. A quotation in its 2008 report states:
	“Given the age and skill profile of many of the new immigrants, it is possible that ‘native’ youngsters may have been losing out in the battle for entry-level jobs.”
	That is of real concern to us. It is certainly of real concern to people who are looking for work.
	The House of Lords has also pointed out that there is an issue with our infrastructure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) said, housing and transport are put under greater strain by uncontrolled immigration. It is no coincidence that in the years after 2002, which saw the greatest increase in immigration, there was a 60% increase in the number of people waiting on social housing lists. Immigrants who have been here for a period of time are 30% more likely to be living in social housing than those born in the UK. That creates resentment and fuels a feeling of futility. Many people see the 3 million jobs created between 1997 and 2010 by the previous Government as a success, but 75% of those jobs were taken by immigrants. What message does that send to young people in this country?
	People are angry. They are angry that the previous Government did not seem to listen to their concerns and they are worried that the present Government may also ignore their concerns. I hope that in his remarks, the Minister will put front and centre the importance of telling people what the Government are doing to deal with uncontrolled immigration, such as the cap on the number of skilled workers coming into the country; the zero cap on unskilled workers coming into the country; and the desire for, and insistence on, language skills among spouses so that they can integrate and contribute to society. Those are important messages that the Government need to recapitulate time and again, so that the constituents who talk to us about this issue understand that the Government are doing something about it.

Tom Brake: Does my hon. Friend agree that the expansion in apprenticeships is a concrete example of the Government doing something about the issue by giving people here the skills that they need to get the jobs that are available?

Christopher Pincher: My right hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. He pre-empts what I am going to say next.
	We have talked in this debate about the importance of controlling the supply side of immigration by stopping people who wish to come to this country from doing so. It is also important to deal with the demand side of the equation. Our welfare system—that is rather a neat and organised way of describing the mess that we inherited—costs us £194 billion a year. It pays hundreds of thousands of people not to work and keeps them trapped in dependency and on welfare because it is not worth their while working. Is it any wonder, therefore, that employers need to plug the labour gap by importing people to take the jobs that people on welfare cannot or will not take? It is economic madness to pay people not to work while importing labour and placing a strain on our infrastructure in so doing.
	My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need measures such as apprenticeships to get our indigenous young people into work, and we also need to ensure that the welfare system, the Work programme and universal credit get young people and those who are long-term unemployed into work. That will choke off demand from employers for imported labour. The checks at our ports and airports and the other rules that the Minister for Immigration has put in place will also choke off the supply side of uncontrolled immigration.
	I believe that the Government have got the balance right. The message that the Prime Minister gave during the general election campaign, when he said that he wanted to deal with immigration so that it was no longer an issue for the British people, showed sound judgment. I look forward to hearing what the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), has to say, and I hope that he will say it in such terms as to give the British people confidence that the Government are going to take control of the issue so that it does not lie dormant, untouched and taboo, as it did for so many years.

Gavin Barwell: I welcome the Government making time for a debate on this subject. It is a sensitive issue but, as the Minister for Immigration said in his introductory remarks, it is one of major public concern, and if the main political parties do not address it, we leave space for extremists to flourish.
	Concern about the issue has risen up the political agenda during my political lifetime, and one has only to look at the Library paper on migration statistics to see why. Almost as soon as the previous Labour Government came to office, there was a significant increase in the level of immigration. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) sighs wearily, but one has only to look at the chart in the Library brief to see that effect. Over the course of the Labour Government’s time in office, immigration into this country doubled.

Chris Bryant: rose —

Gavin Barwell: I would give way to the hon. Gentleman, but a number of other Members wish to speak, so I am going to restrict my remarks to seven or eight minutes.
	Also under the Labour Government, net migration increased fivefold to 250,000 by 2010. That gave rise to two major concerns. The first was about population growth and pressure on services, and Members have spoken a lot about that in the debate. This morning I visited a project called the Well in my constituency. It is run by the Salvation Army, but a number of different public agencies are involved in it. It deals with people who are either sleeping rough, sofa-surfing or have profound housing difficulties. They often have mental health, alcohol or drug problems as well. It was interesting to see both at that project and at the Nightwatch scheme in Croydon, which provides food parcels to people who are in profound housing difficulties, that there were a significant number of people from eastern Europe in need of those services. They came to the UK looking for a better economic future but have not found it, but they are unable or unwilling to return.
	Immigration has given rise to a second concern, which has not really been referred to in the debate because it is not part of the polite political discourse. If we are honest, there are people in this country who feel that their local community has changed demographically during the course of their lifetime and is not the place that it used to be. That is not my view of my local community, but when I canvassed door to door in the run-up to the election, I found that there were people who felt like that and we need to recognise that.
	Both those effects are increased by the fact that the impact of migration in our country is particularly pronounced in certain parts of the country. About 12% of the UK population as a whole were born abroad, but in Greater London that figure rises to about 36%, and in some London boroughs it is even higher than that.
	That concern about migration led to one particularly damaging effect in some of our communities. When the Conservative Government left office in 1997 there was not a single British National party councillor in this country but, as a result of the huge increase in migration, a number of extremists were elected to public office. Thankfully, the number is now declining again.
	Before I touch on a couple of further measures that I should like the Government to take, I wish to set out my views, because it is important for a Conservative representing a demographically highly mixed part of London to recognise that in the past the Conservative party has been perceived, to some degree rightly, as unwelcoming to people from overseas who have tried to settle in this country.
	My view is very much that immigration is a good and necessary thing. If we examine our population, we see that the baby boomer generation is ageing and that if we do not bring in some people of working age, we will have fewer working people supporting more pensioners. If we believe in the UK as a global trader, we clearly need to have links with countries around the world and people need to be able to come here and set up businesses. I sit on the Select Committee on Science and Technology and am very passionate about our best universities
	having the ability to attract the best and brightest talent from around the world. I also see in my home town the vibrancy that migration can bring.
	It is possible, however, to have too much of a good thing, which is what I contend we have had. Government policy needs to pass seven tests, the first of which is tone. It is so important that we do not demonise migrants. They are doing what any Member of the House would do in the equivalent situation.

Gavin Shuker: The hon. Gentleman is extremely progressive and moderate on such issues, but did the Conservative party general election pledge pass the tonal test that he speaks about?

Gavin Barwell: I believe that my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister, who is not in the Chamber, absolutely passes that test. Under the previous Government, policy was loose, but sometimes rhetoric was extremely tough, whereas the Minister is toughening up policy while passing that tonal test.
	Migrants are doing what any hon. Member would do—they are seeking a better life for them and their families—and we must not demonise them as individuals as we seek to address immigration.
	Numbers are part of the issue. The House has already touched on the balance between net and global figures, so I will not. However, it is a question not just of how many, but of whom. I want to talk about the best and brightest academics from around the world, because the Government have introduced a new special tier 1, whereby 1,000 such people are allowed in each year. It seems bizarre to me that there is no limit on the number of professional footballers who have reached a certain standard who can come into the country, but we apply a limit of 1,000 a year to the best and brightest scientists. None of my constituents who are concerned about migration object to people of ability, who will create wealth for the country, coming here.
	The Minister spoke persuasively in his opening speech about removing either people who are here illegally or people against whom a decision has been taken. One thing I would like the Government to do is investigate how we can use our aid budget to help in that regard. I am a great believer in what the Government are doing on overseas aid, but there is a lot of popular concern about it in this period of austerity. One thing we could do is say to countries that one condition of the aid package we provide is having an agreement with the UK to accept back foreign citizens who have committed crimes in this country.
	In the last minute that is available to me, I want to touch briefly on two issues. First, on integration, other hon. Members have spoken passionately about the importance of people learning English, but immigration is a two-way street. The main obligation is on the immigrant to fit in with British society when they arrive, but we as a society need to ensure that we are welcoming to people who come into our midst. Britain has a proud record in that regard, but research shows the barriers that many immigrants still face. The National Centre for Social Research has found that people who have an
	African or Asian-sounding surname need to send about twice as many job applications as people with a traditional English name.
	Secondly and finally, many UKBA staff live in my constituency. In a period of austerity, they are doing the very best they can to maintain and improve the service they provide, both in retaining control of our borders and in ensuring that decisions on migration are made quickly and fairly. I want to pay tribute to the work that UKBA staff are doing within a tough environment within the agency, which is a result of the failures of the previous Government and the banking crisis that were not their fault.
	I am sorry that I cannot elaborate any further on some of the issues that I wanted to mention, but I want to allow other hon. Members the time to speak.

Jackie Doyle-Price: It is a pleasure to address this very mature debate on what can be an emotive subject. Because of its emotiveness, there has been some reticence on the part of mainstream politicians to address it in any substantial way, which has led to a belief among some of our constituents that we are out of touch with their concerns. As many hon. Members have said, that has left the agenda open to those with more sinister motives. I am grateful, therefore, to have the opportunity to address the subject.
	I am proud that we in this country have given a safe haven to those fleeing persecution, that we are seen as a beacon of freedom and opportunity and that so many people wish to pursue their lives here, but for too long, our borders have been too open. We have allowed levels migration beyond what our society can manage, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) so eloquently expressed. That brings a risk to the liberal values that Britons take for granted. I would also like to make it clear that in my experience this is not an issue that divides communities on the basis of race, unless the people addressing it approach it with racist values. Some of the biggest critics of the way in which migration has been handled are our established ethnic minority communities who are fully integrated into society. The problems associated with immigration relate to volume and criminality, not race. With that in mind, I want to focus my comments on illegal immigration.
	The Government have taken welcome steps to limit legal migration, but the tools that they have employed will not have a significant impact on those who are happy to break the law to enter our country. The Government need to do more to improve enforcement and they need to examine whether any aspect of our law needs to change to enable this. In particular, I wish to highlight the weaknesses in the Human Rights Act 1998 which are impeding the ability of the UK Border Agency and the Government to enforce rules effectively against those who have overstayed and should be removed.
	One example is the right to a family life, which appears to be fuelling the idea that all people need to do is have a baby and their application will have to be approved. I have lost count of the number of cases of that that I have seen in my surgeries. I have also had examples of people finding fiancées or manufacturing relationships. In particular, because of the right to free movement, those relationships do not need to be with British citizens, but with people from anywhere across
	the EU. One gentleman who came to see me was applying for leave to remain because he was engaged to be married to his fiancée who was from Latvia. Only a matter of weeks after receiving leave to remain he came to see me to say that they had separated and, although they had not actually married, she had taken out several loans using his surname and he was being pursued for the debts. I am sorry to say that I did not have much sympathy for him.
	I am pleased that the Government have taken action to tackle sham marriages, and I pay particular tribute to Father Tim Codling of St John’s church in Tilbury, who suddenly realised that he was officiating at a lot of weddings between eastern Europeans and Africans, who were often wearing ill-fitting wedding outfits. He alerted the UKBA which unearthed a major sham wedding scam, which led to severe prison sentences for the main perpetrators—all very welcome.
	Of the 200-plus immigration cases I have handled, approximately half of them involved people who had broken the immigration rules in some way and ended up staying here illegally for a prolonged period. That issue has to be tackled as a matter of urgency. I appreciate that it is very difficult. Often these people assume numerous identities and put in multiple claims, all of which slows down the UKBA’s attempt to catch up with them. More often than not, the authorities cannot catch up with them, with the result that we cannot begin to quantify with any accuracy the number of people who are here who should not be.
	When such people come to see me, I ask how they are supporting themselves given that they are not legally allowed to work because of their immigration status. They say that they are supported by their friends and family. I think it is a fair assumption that they are working illegally, and we need to take more action to tackle some of those abuses.
	My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the recent case of a bogus asylum seeker who had managed to claim up to £400,000 of benefits by making illegal claims for disability allowances. It is a case that demonstrates not only the social evil of benefit tourism, which is ripping off the British taxpayer, but the way that people intent on coming to this country illegally will exploit the asylum system and our good will in wishing to provide a safe haven for those escaping persecution. The more desperate effect is that such behaviour also undermines public sympathy for these people. We need a way to appraise asylum claims more quickly.
	Those are clear failings on the part of the UKBA, but it is simply overwhelmed by the size of the task in the face of these abuses. I have talked about the policy changes needed to curb immigration, and I encourage the Minister to look at how the law can be strengthened so that when criminality is identified it is dealt with promptly and effectively, and we can tackle the problem of illegal immigration.

James Morris: It is fair to say that immigration is a source of frustration for many of my constituents. Despite any number of Government initiatives over the past few years, the number of people entering the country continues to be much higher than it was 20 years ago. At a time when
	economic conditions are causing great difficulties, families do not understand why so many people can come from overseas to compete for the finite number of available jobs.
	At a time when people in the public services are having to bear their share of the savings that are needed to tackle the spiralling deficit created by the previous Government, they do not see how this is helped by allowing large numbers of additional people to move into concentrated areas. When they try to express their legitimate concerns, they are too often viewed as racist. However, it is not racist to talk about immigration. In most cases, the concerns are based not on race but on numbers.
	Many of my constituents who contact me about immigration policy are from ethnic minorities. They desperately want an immigration system in which the public as a whole can have confidence, because that is a prerequisite for effective and sustainable community cohesion.
	My constituents want a legitimate debate about the numbers of people coming into the country and about restricting the number of visas. Halesowen and Rowley Regis is fortunate to have a strong local community that is made up of people of different backgrounds, races and faiths who work well together and alongside each other. When local people do not feel able to voice legitimate concerns over immigration policy and do not believe that mainstream political parties are reflecting those concerns, we have seen first hand how that creates a vacuum, which those who seek to divide our society are all too eager to fill.
	Earlier this year, the Ahmadiyya Muslim community’s book stall in Cradley Heath was attacked by thugs from the English Defence League. I have worked closely with the community and know how much good work it does to promote cohesion across the area through its outreach programmes and community work. It does not distinguish between people of different faiths or different backgrounds. Its efforts to raise money for Russells Hall hospital and its work to sell poppies for the Royal British Legion benefit the whole community.
	The EDL’s attack was based on ignorance and fear. Although we should never base our response on its agenda, it is important that we look at some of the factors that allow extremist groups to gain support. The Government’s actions to limit the number of economic migrants coming into the country from outside the EU are an important start. It will take some time before the effect of this ceiling feeds into official figures, but an appropriate limit that is properly enforced is essential if we are to restore faith in a system that has run out of control.
	However, we must also recognise that any quota is in addition to the large number of people coming to work in Britain from within the European Union. The free movement of workers is a key part of the European single market and one of the most important benefits that we gain from our membership of the European Union. The ability of workers to move from one member state to another benefits not only the workers concerned but many businesses that are able to transfer highly skilled workers between offices in different countries.
	Issues clearly arise when large numbers of workers from less wealthy member states wish to move to other countries where wages and benefit payments are much
	higher. The previous Government’s decision not to implement transitional agreements to restrict the number of workers entering Britain from the new EU member states in 2004 was little short of a disaster. Only Britain, Ireland and Sweden chose to allow, from day one, an unrestricted right to work, and as a result Britain attracted far higher migration from those new member states than would otherwise have been the case. That seriously undermined public confidence in the immigration system, and that problem remains. Last week, Croatia signed its accession agreement to join the EU in 2013. It is essential that we do not repeat the mistakes of the previous Government.
	A third area that must be addressed if we are to build confidence in the system is bureaucracy, because few things are more guaranteed to destroy that public confidence than cases in which people with no right to stay in this country cannot be removed. Most of us will be aware of cases in or near our own constituencies where red tape has prevented the rules from being properly enforced, and the Minister will be aware of a recent one involving a patient at Russells Hall hospital in Dudley just outside my constituency. The patient was a Pakistani national whose visa had expired four years before. The hospital declared him fit enough to be discharged in August last year, but he remained at the hospital until this autumn because of difficulties in arranging a medical escort to accompany him home and problems in finding suitable nursing care in Pakistan. The 14 months that he spent at the hospital cost the NHS about £100,000. We must make it easier to remove people who have no right to remain in Britain more quickly and effectively.
	We must never forget the important contribution that migrants have made to our society, economy and culture over many centuries, and we can take pride in our history of welcoming people from around the world and, on the whole, in Britain’s record of creating strong and diverse communities, but the Government are right to recognise that sustainable community cohesion within an integrated society is possible only if people have faith that the immigration system is not a floodgate. My constituents look to the Government to build on their positive actions so far and to deliver on our promise to bring immigration levels back under control.

Andrew Turner: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) and for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), who made brilliant contributions.
	Migration is a contentious issue that until recently no one really dared discuss. The noble Lord Howard of Lympne brought it to the fore when he was the Conservative party leader, but it was not for another five years until both main parties recognised it as a problem to be addressed. The Conservatives have led the way on the issue since the last general election.
	The facts are well documented but it does good to repeat them: the most recent figures show that in the year ending September 2011, 540,000 people entered Britain with the intention of staying for longer than six months, of whom 186,000 came from the Commonwealth, both old and new, and 200,000 from the rest of the world excluding the EU. That leaves 150,000 from the
	European Union. All they get is a simple passport check. Then they are entitled to come into the country, live in a house or flat, find employment and, crucially, apply for benefits—all because they came from a member state of the European Union, not from the rest of the world.
	When in opposition, the Government specifically pledged to bring immigration from non-EU countries down to the tens of thousands before the next election. I applaud that sentiment, but I would like them to go further. I believe the time has come to conduct a wholesale re-evaluation of all our benefits policies. Within that, I would specifically end the agreement with other EU countries.
	Why do I think we should have tougher border checks? Because not having them is very expensive—expensive financially, expensive for our young people trying to find low-skilled jobs and expensive for our housing market. If we prevent foreigners from settling in Britain, more money will stay in the country. There will also be less demand on houses, keeping the property markets in check and allowing our first-time buyers to get on the property ladder, especially in south-east England. There will also be fewer people applying for the same number of jobs, thus reducing unemployment. Other countries are tough on this, including the USA. Why does Britain have to be a soft touch? Rather than having people come to this country, we should be encouraging them to stay in theirs, and to generate the wealth that goes with that.
	Every time Europe is discussed, I am grateful for two things: first, that we did not join the euro; and secondly, that we did not sign the Schengen agreement. As it is, the thought that some 437 million people of the EU are allowed to come to the UK chills my blood. If we had committed to Schengen, they would be able to come into the UK without anyone even checking their passports. It is bad enough that one can go from Cyprus to Calais without one’s passport being checked; imagine if we had signed away any advantage that the channel affords us as well.
	Before I finish, I would like briefly to pay a tribute. The men and women who go to work at our ports of entry on a daily basis deserve our recognition. If our armed forces are protecting our borders in Afghanistan, the UK Border Agency has an equal responsibility at home. There would be no point conducting operations across the world if our border agency did not conduct its work with a similar professionalism here. I know that occasionally things appear to go wrong, but I also know that it is never intentional, and we must remember that. We are talking about dedicated public servants doing a difficult job, and I welcome that.
	I call on the Minister to have a good look at those wanting to come into the UK from outside Europe, but I would also like the policies that allow arrivals from within the EU to be thoroughly reviewed too—this is one way in which the Prime Minister can really look after our national interests. Let us get tough on them. The shores of this island are ours, not Europe’s. We should be able to decide who lands upon them.

Diana Johnson: We have had an interesting debate this evening, with the Minister and the shadow Minister using their opening remarks to set the measured tone with which we should
	always conduct debates on immigration. As constituency Members of Parliament, we all know that immigration frequently crops up when we talk to constituents. I not only represent a port city, but I have a university in my constituency with many overseas students. I also live in an area that has many seasonal workers who come for the agricultural work that needs to be done.
	There is a general consensus around the Chamber that we need to control immigration. We acknowledge, of course, the benefit of immigration to this country over many years. We also acknowledge the genuine asylum seekers, whom we want to assist and provide a safe haven for in this country. However, I am sure we all agree that we also need tough enforcement for illegal immigrants—those who should not be here, those who are overstayers. We need to tackle that problem.
	On the whole, we have had a considered and sensible debate. However, I was a little disappointed that the Minister could not be more generous in his opening remarks about some of the positive steps that were taken through the points-based system. I understand and acknowledge that the Government are adapting and changing it, but the system in place now was introduced by the last, Labour Government. I also dispute the notion that when the coalition Government came to power in 2010 the system was in chaos. That is not correct. Instead, the coalition is building on many of the positive steps and measures introduced by the previous Government.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made some thoughtful comments in his opening contribution. He identified some of the difficult issues surrounding immigration, including those to do with marriage and family reunion and the debate on economic independence and when it is appropriate to set the level of financial support necessary for someone to bring a husband or wife into the country. My hon. Friend also talked about gay asylum issues, which I believe we should have a long, hard think about. All hon. Members know how important is the NHS and how it has benefited in the past from immigration and the dedication of nurses, doctors and health service workers. I hope that when the Minister concludes, he will answer the points that my hon. Friend raised and deal with domestic workers and trafficking, too, as many hon. Members are concerned about them.
	I would like to highlight some of the local issues raised by individual Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) talked about students who had been left high and dry by bogus colleges. I hope that the Immigration Minister will revisit that point, as I know my hon. Friend is still concerned that the students who legitimately applied for their status have been left in a difficult position. Legacy cases are important, too, and the Home Office needs to accept that it has not always responded as quickly or as effectively as it should to them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) mentioned the port of Stranraer, as he has on many occasions, in the context of southern Ireland and the ability to travel to the mainland from there. I am sure that the Minister will want to pursue that further with my hon. Friend.
	The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) talked about the projections for the UK population, mentioning the figure of 70 million that has
	been bandied around. He highlighted issues relating to students, workers and marriage. I was struck by the fact that that other hon. Members spoke about the tone of the debate about students. We know that higher and further education are key economic growth areas for the country, and we do not want to put off good students from coming to our good institutions because of the perception that the system is stacked against them.
	The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) made some remarks about overcrowding, which I found a little odd, considering that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda mentioned in an intervention, huge areas of this country are not well populated. I represent the city of Hull in East Yorkshire, where there is a quite a lot of space in some areas. The hon. Gentleman made the important point that immigrants pay more tax than they often receive in benefits. I believe we should reflect further on that.
	The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) represents an area I know a little, and I am familiar with issues to do with agricultural workers and the seasonal character of the population. He made a strong and passionate case about resources for his area, but I would refer him to the migration impact fund, which was introduced by the last Government to support areas that were seeing a certain level of immigration into their local communities.
	The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) was very brave to make comments about the number of Labour Members in the Chamber after the non-appearance of his leader today in the most important statement the House has had for quite some time, but I will move on. I found his comments about his manifesto promise interesting. It was a promise to stop holding children in detention, but of course that promise changed once the Liberal Democrats were in government.
	The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) focused on the Opposition’s policies on immigration rather than on his own party’s proposals. I suggest that he look at the figures showing that net migration of 245,000 for the year ending March 2011 compares with net migration of 222,000 in March 2010. That is something to reflect on, particularly in respect of whether his Government’s policies are working.
	The hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) said that the Government had struck the right balance. We must pay special attention to the statistics, and ensure that they have been authorised. The hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) spoke about what was happening in his constituency. Obviously that is important, but let me gently remind him that—as I recall—the first BNP councillor was elected in 1993 in Tower Hamlets, when we had a Conservative Government and the Liberal Democrats controlled Tower Hamlets council.
	The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) spoke about sham marriages and scams, and of course we all agree with him that such activities must be dealt with quickly and effectively. He said that the UKBA had been overwhelmed, which was an interesting comment given the 6,500 jobs that will be lost in the agency in the coming years.
	The hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) spoke of an effective removal regime, and gave a good local example. I think that all Members
	want to ensure that the removal regime is as effective and speedy as possible when that is appropriate. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) referred to the need to strengthen checks at the borders, and to the hard work of UKBA staff. I am sure that the whole House agrees with him about that.
	Members took advantage of the opportunity to discuss all the issues involved, and this was a good debate. However, I fear that the Government’s rhetoric does not match the reality represented by the statistics. We recall the debacle over the summer involving the UKBA immigration checks, when Ministers clearly did not have a grip on what was happening on the front line, and we know that there are 6,500 UKBA job losses to come. We do not know whether the Government’s policies will be effectively implemented. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda pointed out that 12% fewer illegal immigrants, overstayers and criminals had been removed this year than last year.
	We must be alive to this issue. We must pay attention to the statistics, and must hold the Government to account in the months and years to come. We shall see whether they can deliver on their commitment to reducing net migration to tens of thousands.

James Brokenshire: We have had an informative and measured debate, and it is important to note that the Government found time for it. As many Members have pointed out, we should be able to discuss immigration with candour, openness and honesty, basing our evidence on the facts. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) spoke of the need to ensure that the subject was not off limits, as I think we have done today. As was clear from many speeches, it is a matter of significant concern to our constituents. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), for instance, highlighted the support for the Migration Watch e-petition.
	I welcomed the 10 speeches from Back Benchers, although I was disappointed and slightly surprised that they were all made by Government Members. As I have said, it is important for the subject not to be off limits and for a broad debate to take place across the Chamber.
	Let me remind the House of this Government’s approach to immigration, which is about balance. Britain benefits from immigration and has always done so, but it will continue to do so only if immigration is properly controlled. That means that the unsustainable level of net migration in recent years must be brought down. It is not unfair to characterise the previous Government’s approach as not being about controlled migration; it was more characterised by unlimited migration. Following the pushing by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) accepted that the level of migration had been too high, so we look forward to the development of further policy and of the debate in the weeks and months ahead.
	The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) highlighted the points-based system. I am sure that we will return to these issues in the future, but I wish to set out one fact for her. When that system
	was introduced in 2009, the number of student visas increased from 232,000 to a record 320,000. We have taken the clear approach that the view and policy of the previous Government were not sustainable, so we have imposed some much-needed rigour on the system through: an annual limit of 20,700 sponsored workers with a job offer; closing the tier 1 general route and replacing it with a smaller, more focused exceptional talent route; accelerated settlement for the biggest investors and most successful entrepreneurs; restricting tier 2 to graduate-level occupations and intermediate-level English speakers; restricting intra-company transfers to 12 months, unless someone is earning £40,000 or more; and introducing tougher entry requirements, with higher language competency and evidence of maintenance requirements, whereby all educational institutions are to be highly trusted sponsors and vetted by the relevant improved inspectorate. However, there is more to be done, which is why the Government will be announcing reforms to settlement and the family route in due course.
	Some important contributions have made by hon. Members, and I will try to respond to as many as I can in the time left to me. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex highlighted the need to take action on the student route. Statistics show that one in five students—or about 21%—appeared to remain in the migration system five years after the end of their course, which highlights clearly why we need to take action. Indeed, we have fundamentally reformed the student visa route, with measures including a tightening of the regime for licensing colleges that sponsor foreign students; restrictions on the entitlements of students, including the right to work; and the closure of the post-study work route from April 2012. The hon. Member for Rhondda highlighted the issue of the post-study work route, which we believe is far too generous. In 2010, one in 10 UK graduates was unemployed and 39,000 non-EU students took advantage of post-study work. The figure was 47,000 between January and September this year, which is why we will close the post-study work route from April 2012.
	I wish to comment on the points raised by a number of hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), and for Peterborough, about the pressures on public services. Those pressures are the reason why the Government have commissioned research into the impact of migration on UK employment and the take-up of public services, and we will be publishing this work in due course. We have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to examine the national impacts on employment, congestion and national services, and its report will be published early next year.
	On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness about scientists and researchers, the Government’s changes to the points-based system have all been made with the needs of the science, academic and research communities in mind. A number of routes are available depending on the individual’s level of experience or the length of time needed in the UK, including at tier 2, which is the main route for those coming to work as scientific, academic or research staff, where the possibility of a long stay is available. Migrants with PhDs are given extra points and migrants must meet the resident labour market test and be paid the appropriate rate for the job, with a minimum salary
	of £20,000. We have clearly reflected on the needs of science in the proposals and on the exceptional talent route, through which 700 of the 1,000 places in the first year have been earmarked for the use of exceptionally talented scientists, academics and engineers.
	Let me comment on the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) about children in detention. We have radically changed the system to ensure that the welfare of the child is at the heart of the decision and the removals process. This Government have introduced very important and significant change and my right hon. Friend was right to highlight that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough highlighted the issue of A2 nationals and, as he said, the Migration Advisory Committee has made a clear case for extending the restrictions on Bulgarians and Romanians. He may be aware that on 23 November, restrictions on how Bulgarian and Romanian nationals access the UK labour market were extended until the end of 2013, which means that those nationals will continue to require permission from the UKBA before they can work in the UK. Let me make it absolutely clear that this Government will always introduce transitional controls on all new EU member states as a matter of course. That is a very important statement to underline and put on the record, recognising to some extent the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner).
	My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) highlighted the issue of the European Court of Human Rights and article 8. The Government will revise the immigration rules to reinforce the public interest in seeing foreign criminals and those who have breached our immigration laws removed from this country.
	I talked about a balanced immigration policy. We want the brightest and the best to come to the UK and we want to support economic growth. I know that that point was, in many ways, underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) when he talked about the economy and how this issue factors in. That is why we have consulted widely on all our reforms with business and with the higher education sector. Every month since we introduced the limit the visas on offer have been under-subscribed, so not a single valuable worker has been prevented from coming here.
	To promote the brightest and the best we made the investor and entrepreneur routes more attractive and accessible, for instance through an accelerated path to settlement. The latest quarterly figures show that numbers for both investors and entrepreneurs have more than doubled compared with the same period last year. We have opened a new route for exceptional talent under which applicants do not need a job offer but must be endorsed by a competent body as world-leading talent. By introducing these important changes, we have underlined the sense of balance and their contribution to the economic well-being of our country.
	Our border operations are key in ensuring the effectiveness of our migration policies, guarding against abuse and circumvention of the visa system and illegal immigration. It is important to understand that the old
	idea that the border starts at Dover or Heathrow will become increasingly old-fashioned. To reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, we want to export our borders so that they start at airports and visa application centres around the world. In so doing, we will ensure that we have stronger, more effective controls.
	People have a right to know that the Government are protecting their jobs, keeping a firm grip on those who come here and sending home those who break the rules. That is the approach the Government have taken and will continue to take in the best interests of our citizens, our economy and our country. It is very much that sense of balance that we have adopted in our policies. Immigration is a vitally important subject for this country.
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Business without Debate

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Corporation Tax

That the draft Investment Trust (Approved Company) (Tax) Regulations 2011, which were laid before this House on 7 November, be approved.—(Mr Vara.)
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (14 DECEMBER) (No. 2)

Ordered,
	That at the sitting on Wednesday 14 December the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on:
	1. the Motions in the name of Sir George Young relating to Carry-over (Bills brought in upon a ways and means resolution), Third reading (bills brought in upon a ways and means resolution), Sessionality (supply), Consideration of estimates and Questions on voting of estimates, &c. not later than one and a half hours after their commencement; and
	2. the Motion in the name of Sir George Young relating to Public bodies: scrutiny of draft orders not later than three hours after commencement of proceedings on the Motions specified in paragraph 1;
	and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved.—(Mr Vara.)

POLITICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Ordered,
	That Yasmin Qureshi be discharged from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and Paul Flynn be added.— (Mr Vara .)

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

Ordered,
	That Mr Gerry Sutcliffe be added to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.—( Geoffrey Clifton-Brown , on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

PREGNANCY COUNSELLING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Vara.)

Gavin Shuker: I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this Adjournment debate. Three months ago, during our debates on the Health and Social Care Bill, an amendment upholding a notion supported by 78% of the British public, that
	“a woman should have a right to independent counselling when considering having an abortion, from a source that has no financial interest in her decision”
	was put to the vote. It was voted down by a majority of three to one. I know this all too well because I intervened in the debate to say why I hoped it would not go to a Division. It felt misplaced in the legislation and followed a fractious debate that had been conducted in the papers and the media. It descended, as all such debates seem to, into a political bun fight. Indeed, one of the few voices of moderation—hon. Members might be surprised to hear me say this—was the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), who is in her place tonight.
	The Government are rightly engaging in a consultation process to see how best to improve pregnancy counselling services. It is in that context that I sought this Adjournment debate. I hope that we can show, as a House, that we have the maturity to ask a simple question without descending into accusations either of betrayal or of compromise. The question we must ask is this: do the present arrangements for pregnancy counselling, when a woman is deciding whether to undergo a termination procedure or to make arrangements for seeing her pregnancy through, serve us well?
	I should like to quote a few women who have spoken about their experiences of the pregnancy counselling system as it is currently constituted. All these women received taxpayer-funded counselling; they really are the most important voices we could hear from this evening. A woman called Jennie had a bad experience. She said,
	“I felt this counsellor was disinterested. I actually told her to pay attention because this was important to me that I had this counselling. It was like she was thinking about her shopping and I was just choosing a handbag.”
	Emma said:
	“I felt irritated with the counsellor because she presented my abortion options like it was a sweet shop; ‘So what would you prefer? The pills that will do this, this and this or you could have a surgical procedure.’ I was so angry; I just told her I didn’t care.”
	Other women have reported that they felt pregnancy option counselling simply was not made available to them. A woman called Kerry said:
	“They did not offer me counselling. I was crying and screaming as I went for the abortion but they still went through with it. I was pressurised by my boyfriend. It is the first thing I think about in the morning and the last thing at night.”
	Patricia was not offered counselling either. She said:
	“I was never given any options. When I took the second pill I was sent home to have the abortion. I have not stopped crying ever since.”
	It is tempting to dismiss these experiences, but they are real. Any mature debate will, I hope, avoid the accusation that these women are in some way rewriting
	their own history. Surely we should do all we can as a society to ensure that women, regardless of their choice in such circumstances, do not have to live with regret, in many cases for the rest of their lives.
	At the heart of the proposal that all women should access independent counselling where the source of that counselling does not have a financial interest in their decision is a concern about the current arrangements. At present the only available taxpayer- funded pregnancy counselling is given by those working for abortion providers. Some have suggested that this means that counsellors will act unprofessionally, in a directive fashion. I do not suggest that, but I do have a concern.
	When a pregnancy counsellor also works for an organisation that provides abortions, there is an underlying direction of travel. The expectation, for both the organisation and the woman accessing the service, is that the normal process will conclude in the termination of a pregnancy.

Andrew Selous: Given that the law gives a woman the right to choose, does the hon. Gentleman agree that a woman should also have the right to choose from where she gets her counselling? I have a wonderful lady in my constituency, Sarah Richards, who receives no funding for the women who come to her. She does not badger them in any direction. Would the hon. Gentleman like to see a woman such as Sarah Richards who provides such a service receiving the same payment as the British Pregnancy Advisory Service receives for the women it counsels?

Gavin Shuker: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point about the experiences in his constituency. I will go on to talk about the system that I think might be able to facilitate something along those lines and address some of the concerns that, quite understandably, many people will have when they hear about those who are currently outside the system coming in as well.
	It is reasonable to expect that women are offered, should they want it, counselling that does not have a connection and an underlying association with only one outcome.

Kate Green: My hon. Friend is making a very thoughtful case. Does he agree that we particularly want to avoid late terminations? They are stressful for women and they are obviously a cause of great concern. How would he be sure that directing women to sources of counselling outwith abortion providers would not cause delay?

Gavin Shuker: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Where terminations are to occur, they should happen early. There is a concern that women who desire the kind of context in which they can make their own decision are provided for as well. There will always have to be a balance in any system, but there is an inherent risk in the system as it is currently constituted that women are not able to access that counselling.
	It is reasonable that independent pregnancy counselling should be made available to all women who are considering their options. It might surprise the House to know that there is no legal guarantee that such counselling is available.

Fiona Bruce: I commend the hon. Gentleman for introducing this important debate. Does he also agree that where such counselling is offered, it should be provided by counsellors who have specialist training and experience in advising those who are in the situation he describes?

Gavin Shuker: The hon. Lady makes an extremely good point. I agree, and I will go on to say a few words about some of the criteria that we should look for in people providing such counselling in future.
	I believe it is perfectly reasonable, in a debate as complex and fractious as this, to suggest that given the issues we have talked about, the most sensible thing the Government could do is take out of the equation the financial link between counselling and the procedure. I accept that there are opinions in all parts of the House, but one simple principle to enact—and one potentially complex thing to do—would be to take the financial link out of the process. Many would see it as wrong that pregnancy counselling is currently monopolised by those who are pro-choice. There is an imbalance in the system which means that, by and large, counselling is provided only by private abortion clinics. I encourage hon. Members, whatever their perspective on the issue, to consider this simple question: can it really be right that the only taxpayer-funded pregnancy counselling available is currently given by those working for abortion providers?
	Counselling in this context should always be non-directive, client-centred and universally available, and the right to it should be legally protected, but I do not believe that it should be subject to a duopoly, as it is at present. If a provider can produce genuinely client-centred and non-directive counselling that is free from a financial link to any given procedure, I believe that the NHS should fund it. There are more than two such providers in the UK today.
	In that light, I very much welcome the commitment that the Minister gave the House in September. She said:
	“Whether women want to take up the offer of independent counselling will be a matter for them, but we are clear that the offer should be made.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2011; Vol. 532, c. 384.]
	She also spoke of the difficulty in defining what was meant by “independent” in this context. For some it simply means non-directive, but for others it means independence from finance or independence of the organisational structure from the abortion provider. As I understand it, her Department has not yet given any assurance that the offer of independent counselling would by definition mean counselling by persons or bodies without any kind of vested interest in abortion provision. I ask her to reflect on this and reiterate her commitment that women will be offered independent counselling and that the way to ensure that is by creating a regulatory framework that recognises the provision of alternative sources of pregnancy counselling to those offered by the big two.
	In this country we have more than 40,000 trained counsellors who are members of either the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy or the UK Council for Psychotherapy. I hope that the Department will liaise with both organisations and the Royal College of Psychiatrists in developing an entirely new approach to how pregnancy counselling is provided in this country.
	I know I speak for many, both in the Chamber and outside, when I say that my preference would be for abortion clinics not to be provided in pregnancy options counselling, ensuring that every woman seeking such counselling would know that there is no financial relationship between counselling and the provision of a termination. However, I accept the Government’s position that the right way forward on this issue is through consultation that allows all parties to express their views. It seems entirely practical and plausible for the Government, using the resources currently available, to develop a system in which every woman considering her pregnancy is offered counselling, should she wish to have it.
	Non-directive pregnancy options counsellors, who are excluded from the present state settlement, can offer practical advice and help for women who choose to take their pregnancy to full term and often an ongoing support relationship. The focus of existing providers, understandably, is whether to abort or not. Just as choices are wider than simply whether or not to have an abortion, so counselling should give recognition to and advice on adoption and fostering when a woman considers continuing with her pregnancy.
	Let me turn to the inevitable charge that allowing counsellors who are pro-life in their personal lives into the system would be inherently damaging to women. It starts with an assumption that the present system is both neutral and independent and hinges on a prejudice about those who hold such convictions. Allow me humbly to disagree with this notion. First, if the debate this autumn taught us anything, it is that no one is neutral. On an issue of conscience, right-minded and well-meaning people will rightly disagree and end up on different sides of the debate, but they will hold a position of conscience that they feel strongly about, hence my suggestion that we do what we can do now, hence my call to break the financial link between counselling and the termination procedure, and hence my desire to ensure that there is no nagging doubt at the back of any woman’s mind about who is looking out for their interests.
	Secondly, there is an assumption that people cannot park their personal convictions at the door. Every counsellor knows that pressure in any direction is counter-productive for a woman who wants to continue her pregnancy but needs the space to reach that conclusion herself. In a new system, every counsellor should know that, whether they are personally pro-choice or pro-life, any moves that depart from non-directive principles should endanger their ability to do such work in future.
	Equally, I hope that being pro-choice would mean being pro-all-the-choices available to women and that some providers are more expert at providing additional choices to those currently available and funded within the present system. That is why I hope that providers who, as many Members have mentioned, are doing amazing work to support women who would otherwise have felt no option but to undergo an abortion will be welcomed into our present system.
	As a House, we have always had the ability to bridge divides, overcome prejudices we see in one another and together find a better arrangement for those we are here to serve. I feel certain that there are women who are let down by the current arrangements. The right response for us is to come together in a spirit of respect, excluding no one or their views. The ongoing consultation by the Government is an opportunity for us to do so, and I hope that we will not be found lacking.

Anne Milton: I thank the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) for bringing this important issue to the fore in the House again. It is testament to how important the issue is that, at this late hour, the House is filled with many Members who take an interest in it. People rightly feel very strongly about it, and he has made some very important points. In this debate, whatever our respective positions, I think we all agree that women who face a decision about whether to proceed with their pregnancy need support, advice and, indeed, counselling; often, it is a very difficult decision for women to make.
	The hon. Gentleman supported the amendment introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), and since that debate officials in the Department of Health have been developing and looking at proposals for a consultation on the counselling options in the independent sector and in the NHS for all women considering abortion.
	I am working with Members from both sides of the House to look at how we might proceed with the consultation, and I have been impressed by what the hon. Gentleman referred to as the “maturity” of that group of people, who, despite starting from quite opposite ends of the debate, have come together to find out where we agree and, at the end of the day, to ensure that we put forward a consultation that looks at what is best for women.
	The consultation will consider how to develop an offer of counselling that is impartial and supportive and, as part of the process, we will look at who is best placed to offer counselling. It is not about automatically including or excluding any one type of organisation; what matters is that we define clearly the outcomes that we want for women. It is important to focus on the process, but we need to be clear about what we are trying to achieve.
	Officials have visited several counselling providers to find out more about the services that are offered in terms of the process, the qualifications that their counsellors hold, and what people should expect on booking a counselling appointment. Some organisations are abortion providers, some are services that refer people to abortion providers, and others do not make direct abortion referrals. Official recently visited a Marie Stopes International clinic and a BPAS clinic, and what they found was quite interesting. During the consultation, I am sure that we will hear from many other people with experience of those services.
	The proposals are still being developed, and, on an issue that has sought to divide the House in the past, and on which there are sometimes very strong views, it is important that we go into the consultation with one mind. We are confident that, as a result of the work, counselling arrangements will be improved. That is the purpose of the work, and we want to take into account everyone’s point of view so that we put together for consultation the right document that asks the right questions and includes the right options, and so that we hear and know exactly what is the best way forward.
	It is clear that good work, delivered by different providers, is going on in many places, but we need to make sure that all women are offered a consistently good service. The repercussions of that not being the
	case are very serious. The aim of the consultation will be to propose ways to strengthen existing counselling options for women where they are good, improve the services where they fall short, and set out detailed options to achieve that goal.

Thomas Docherty: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) for securing this well-measured debate. The Minister will be aware that the Health and Social Care Bill is going through the House of Lords. Will she guarantee that before the Bill leaves the other place and comes back here, she will bring forward a measured package to make sure that there is a consultation about these issues?

Anne Milton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but there is no need for this to be dealt with in legislation. Before today, I have given my word at this Dispatch Box that we will carry out the consultation and bring forward the best options in finding the best way to make sure that women have an offer of counselling should they wish to take it up. It is important to remember that women who access services sometimes do so from a wide variety of directions—they may self-refer or come from their GP. What matters is that we get the offer in the right place. We need to consider whether the woman should have the one offer or whether the offer needs to be continually open because she might turn it down in the first instance, at the first appointment, but want to take it up, say, a week down the line. It is important that we get the detail right. We do not need to put it into primary legislation; in fact, it would arguably be inappropriate to do so. I repeat that I have said from this Dispatch Box, on more than one occasion, what we will do.
	As the hon. Member for Luton South said, there is concern that there is a conflict of interest in that counsellors are paid for procedures and yet also expected to provide entirely impartial advice to women. Although there are no formal quality standards in place for counsellors and no minimum standards for training or qualifications, we have found that the majority of counsellors who work in independent sector abortion providers are registered with the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy. Underpinning membership of, and accreditation by, this organisation is a thorough ethical framework that counsellors must abide by. However, sufficient concern has been expressed, so we are looking at everything in the round to make sure that the sector is not only independent but has the confidence of the public that it is independent. It is important to say that independent sector abortion providers and organisations that refer women for an abortion are subject to the Secretary of State’s approval and monitoring by the Care Quality Commission. Marie Stopes International, which is one of the leading abortion providers, has reported that 20% of its clients decided not to go through with the termination following counselling. That is an interesting statistic.
	Pregnancy counselling is about providing women with a non-directional and non-threatening service in which they can explore the issues. Some will immediately decide on their course of action, and others will still be unsure about what to do at their first appointment with a health professional. This can sometimes make it very
	difficult to provide the uniform standard of care that is so important. What is right for one woman will not necessarily be right for another, and so a flexible service that can respond as far as possible to individual women’s needs is essential. Moreover, we do not want to create barriers or to instil delays in the service. Counselling can help a woman to recognise conflicting emotions and feelings and allow her to accept that there may be no perfect, straightforward answer to this crisis in her life. Most importantly, it allows her time and space to reach an informed decision. There is evidence that counselling can help women, particularly vulnerable women, to make a decision with which they are comfortable. We have also heard anecdotal evidence from women who feel that they could have been helped by counselling before making their decision to have an abortion.
	Counselling must be balanced. Effective counselling must be confidential, non-directive, non-judgmental, supportive and understood by the person to be independent of any assessment for legal approval for abortion. It needs to happen away from the influence of family or friends. The hon. Member for Luton South highlighted the case of a woman who felt pressurised by her boyfriend and I know that some women feel pressurised by their families.
	Contraception has been free on the NHS since 1974. It has helped millions of people to avoid unintended pregnancy and to plan their families as they wish. There are 15 methods of contraception and we have seen a recent increase in the number of women choosing highly effective methods of long-acting contraception.
	Although abortion rates for all ages have remained stable, between 2007 and 2010 the abortion rate fell for those aged 24 and under, and the number of abortions overall fell. In 2007 there were just shy of 200,000 abortions, whereas in 2010 there were 189,574, which is a decrease of nearly 10,000 in the space of three years. That is good, but we clearly have a great deal of work to do. Ideally, we do not want to face anything near those numbers. We must ensure that young people have good relationships and sex education so that they can make good choices for their lives.
	In conclusion, this work is about ensuring that all women considering an abortion get the best possible service, which they not only need, but deserve. We are looking to build on the recent early successes of the increasing access to psychological therapies programme and to use that model to develop options for pregnancy counselling. We have had discussions with the officials leading that team in the Department and there is a lot
	of opportunity. I have no doubt that when we offer young women counselling, it will be an opportunity for some women to unearth all sorts of other issues in their lives, such as domestic violence and sexual abuse. I hope that all Members agree with the principle behind this, as I think they do, even though we sometimes disagree about the small print. I hope that the hon. Member for Luton South and all hon. Members will continue to work with us to get this right.

David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the stand that she is taking, even though some of her statistics have slightly mystified me. Before she completes her speech, will she tell the House roughly when, after the consultation next January or February, she believes we will come to a new arrangement for abortion counselling?

Anne Milton: As I have said, I am working with Members on all sides of the debate to get the consultation document right, with the right options and the right offer. The consultation will last for 12 weeks and I then hope to bring forward the arrangements. There are issues with the number of counsellors who are available and with the pathways. These things never happen as quickly as I would like. I always wish that things could happen yesterday, but sadly they cannot.

Thomas Docherty: Will the Minister confirm whether she thinks that it will happen before or after the Health and Social Care Bill passes out of the House of Lords?

Anne Milton: It is not for me to prejudge the passage of any Bill, particularly when it is in another place. I am determined to get on with this work. It is not dependent on the Bill. We need to move forward so that we can get the process in place for the offer to be made as soon as possible.
	The hon. Member for Luton South rightly said that no one is neutral. We want women to receive advice on all the available options and to get support in making their decisions. We want them to have the offer of independent counselling so that when they make a decision, they feel sure in their hearts that it is right for them not just for today, but for the rest of their lives.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.